A Theoretical, not Rhetorical Question.

2»

Replies

  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Idaho doesn't have a helmet law and barely has a seatbelt law.

    I always thought seatbelt laws were less about safety and more about allowing police officers to make pretextual traffic stops without falling afoul of the 4th Amendment.

    Officer: So I pulled the car over, and after I made the stop, I smelled marijuana, and so I had the suspect exit the car and I conducted a search of the vehicle. That's when I found the half a joint in the trunk.

    Lawyer: But why did you pull my client over in the first place? He wasn't speeding, didn't swerve, and all his lights were working.

    Officer: As he drove past, it looked to me like he did not have his seatbelt on. That's why I made the stop. I think I saw him reach back and put it on while I was walking up to the vehicle, just before I smelled the dope.

    bd
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    Jamespio wrote: »
    Our forebears once lived in a world where everyone paid the price of their own mistakes and choices. Choose to take on that woolly mammoth on your own, get gored by a tusk, die in the snow, cold and alone. I'm not all that interested in returning to that state of affairs. People end up desperately poor and in need of medical care for a whole host of reasons. I know of no principled basis on which to distinguish those situations that meet my own definition of "fair" from those that do not that would actually satisfy all of our 300 million+ citizens. Such decisions should also be, for fairness reasons, as objective as possible. Our current system generally provides medical care to those that meet objective criteria regarding ability to pay and medical need. That keeps people alive, and healthier than they would otherwise be, and I like that.

    Flytrap, here's a hypothetical question for you: how would you prefer the individual in your theoretical question be treated?

    And don't give us some lame excuse about "answer my question first." Public policy is a series of choices, not absolutes. So share with us what choice you would make, and how that choice should be implemented.

    Given the fact the quality of life was totally gone, I'd have let them pull the plug.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    You want to have some fun? If your spouse ever has to go to the emergency room for something minor like a sprained ankle, keep interjecting every chance you get to ask questions about when you can put a Do Not Resuscitate Order in place and what the minimum conditions would be before they would let you use it.

    bd
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    P.Dieter wrote: »
    I think the smug delight you get years later when reading the obit is worth the investment.
    Smug delight? No, the guy is dead after being a vegetable since the early 70's. 40 years of being bedridden, eating through a straw and watching Sesame Street. Certainly wouldn't call that living, well, maybe living hell. When I saw the obit, the first thing coming to mind was where the hell do I know that guy from? Just seemed such a waste that he brought upon himself.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • Brian D. wrote: »
    I always thought seatbelt laws were less about safety and more about allowing police officers to make pretextual traffic stops without falling afoul of the 4th Amendment.

    Officer: So I pulled the car over, and after I made the stop, I smelled marijuana, and so I had the suspect exit the car and I conducted a search of the vehicle. That's when I found the half a joint in the trunk.

    Lawyer: But why did you pull my client over in the first place? He wasn't speeding, didn't swerve, and all his lights were working.

    Officer: As he drove past, it looked to me like he did not have his seatbelt on. That's why I made the stop. I think I saw him reach back and put it on while I was walking up to the vehicle, just before I smelled the dope.

    bd

    Its a $10 fine (doubled from $5 a few years ago) and the cops can't stop your vehicle for a seatbelt violation.

    Just follow those dopers for long enough . . . they'll do something wrong. :) Then, the cops proceed as noted above.
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    They can in Wisconsin, seatbelts became a primary cause, if that's the right terminolgy, for pulling someone over a couple months ago. Your state may vary.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • flytrap wrote: »
    Given the fact the quality of life was totally gone, I'd have let them pull the plug.

    So we can pull your plug as soon as caring for you costs more than the quality of your life is worth? Thanks for the permission. Oops, we've reached that point. bu-bye.
  • rhumblinerhumbline Senior Member Posts: 154 Senior Member
    flytrap wrote: »
    Is this fair or right? Thoughts?

    It's not fair, but it's right.
    Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people look smart until you hear them talk.
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    Jamespio wrote: »
    So we can pull your plug as soon as caring for you costs more than the quality of your life is worth? Thanks for the permission. Oops, we've reached that point. bu-bye.
    Absolutely, part of the living will, don't resuscitate. My mother has designated me her power of attorney for health for the same reason, she doesn't want to "hang on by a thread", in her words. Knowing she WANTS the plug pulled will make it a whole lot easier, then too, watching the old man go downhill with Alzheimer's wasn't that much fun either. Of course, I still plan on dying at 120, shot by a jealous husband when caught in bed with his 20 year old wife.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • I respect your decision flytrap. Having made that decision, I'd expct you to respect that it is intensely personal, and it is not your place to tell othersw, such as this motorcycle rider, how he or his family should make that decision.
  • what's the over under for when this thread flat lines?
  • We need a Lodge Death Panel. I nominate Salty Dave to head it up.
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    James, your absolutely right it's not my place to tell others what to do, there's far to much of that in today's society.

    I was just curious about how the Lodge felt/thought about this kind of instance. I was never asked by the family, nor did I tell them, they should pull the plug. It kind of rankles me to have to pay for someone else's stupidity, but as has been pointed out, we are all stupid at some point, and while keeping them alive at our expense may not be fair it is probably the right thing to do.

    P.S. If I had been asked I would have said pull the plug because the guy's life as he knew it was over.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    greenman wrote: »
    We need a Lodge Death Panel. I nominate Salty Dave to head it up.
    Leading by example?
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 8,582 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Its a $10 fine (doubled from $5 a few years ago) and the cops can't stop your vehicle for a seatbelt violation.

    Just follow those dopers for long enough . . . they'll do something wrong. :) Then, the cops proceed as noted above.

    In PA it's more than $10 but is (unless the law has changed) a secondary offense for which you can be cited only after being stopped for something else.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • TomTom Senior Member Posts: 253 Senior Member
    Unfortunately, the new cell phone laws championed by others on the board will lead to precisely that type of baseless stop by police trying to enforce such a law. Cops will be peering into peoples' cars trying to confirm cell phone usage and once harmless acts will become the basis for forming reasonable suspicion for a stop. From now on, never drive by a cop looking at your lap, your radio, your console, etc. lest you be thought to be in violation of the law. Eyes on the road and hands at 10 & 2 will take on new meaning now: police avoidance.
  • Tom wrote: »
    Eyes on the road and hands at 10 & 2 will take on new meaning now: police avoidance.

    Drivin down south 101.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,149 Senior Member
    Police Avoidance?

    There is an app for that...

    http://www.trapster.com/
2»

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file