Driver who killed cyclist charged with criminal vehicular homicide: cell phone use
11-20-14, 07:30 AM
#51
Tractorlegs
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 3,185
Bikes: Schwinn Meridian Single-Speed Tricycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked 60 Times
in
42 Posts
I think that the people carrying on about the greatly increased risk to bicyclists from accidents caused by cell phone wielding motorists also have no clue about the truth, facts, or statistics on the issue, nor on measuring risk; and could care less as they "know" the truth must be whatever they think/say it is.
__________________
********************************
Trikeman
Trikeman
11-20-14, 07:48 AM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1638 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times
in
495 Posts
Feldman,
Wow, who the F pissed in your Wheaties?!? Piss on the Constitution? Son, those are fighting words to all of the Active Duty Soldiers and Veterans on this site. We didn’t enlist to have the Constitution trampled on.
Why stop at destroying cell phones, why not give the cops the power to put a bullet into an engine block, or shot the driver? Destroying all cell phones “within” reach of the driver is going too far.
What if those cell phones are turned off? What if those cell phones do not have cell service? Should they be destroyed as well? What about tablets and laptops, or GPS’, will they also be destroyed? Where do you draw the line?
We have due process in this country for a reason, and no one can just destroy private property whenever they feel like it.
And again, I have to say, saying “Piss on the Constitution” is fighting words to Active Duty Soliders and the Veterans on this site. And is NOT what we signed up for, we signed up to PROTECT the Constitution.
Also as you’ve been asked, just what kind of a police state do you want to live in where the police have the power to destroy private property without due process?
Wow, who the F pissed in your Wheaties?!? Piss on the Constitution? Son, those are fighting words to all of the Active Duty Soldiers and Veterans on this site. We didn’t enlist to have the Constitution trampled on.
Why stop at destroying cell phones, why not give the cops the power to put a bullet into an engine block, or shot the driver? Destroying all cell phones “within” reach of the driver is going too far.
What if those cell phones are turned off? What if those cell phones do not have cell service? Should they be destroyed as well? What about tablets and laptops, or GPS’, will they also be destroyed? Where do you draw the line?
We have due process in this country for a reason, and no one can just destroy private property whenever they feel like it.
And again, I have to say, saying “Piss on the Constitution” is fighting words to Active Duty Soliders and the Veterans on this site. And is NOT what we signed up for, we signed up to PROTECT the Constitution.
Also as you’ve been asked, just what kind of a police state do you want to live in where the police have the power to destroy private property without due process?
__________________
nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
11-20-14, 08:06 AM
#53
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Some folks need hard statistics with clear conclusions. Which means that there has to be some database that correlates cell phone use with accident rates... and since folks are not liable to admit that they just crashed due to illegal cell phone use (and some agencies even hide such evidence) it is quite difficult to get a definitive "cell phones cause crashes" statistic.
Although try to bear in mind that even train wrecks have been caused by cell phone use...
Train engineer was texting just before California crash | Reuters
/sarcasm on
But automobile drivers using cell phones causing crashes... "show me the numbers..."
/sarcasm off
Last edited by genec; 11-20-14 at 08:12 AM.
11-20-14, 08:21 AM
#54
20+mph Commuter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greenville. SC USA
Posts: 7,517
Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1434 Post(s)
Liked 331 Times
in
219 Posts
I'm not too worried about people talking while driving. It's looking away from the road for whatever reason that freaks me out.
On the other hand, my job requires an unhealthy amount of multitasking. I can juggle a lot of tasks and thoughts. But occasionally while driving under certain conditions (usually lasting one minute or less) I have to ask my wife to stop talking to me because I can not process what she is saying AND keep an eye on everything going on around me - usually on high speed freeways with lots of traffic, merging, etc. Even knowing that I can multitask with the best of them, I don't/can't do it behind the wheel of a car at high speed under certain conditions.
So what about the dingbat who can't walk and chew gum at the same time? How are they going to accomplish the multitasking without engaging an air bag sooner than later? Certainly some phone users are more dangerous than others. But even with Bluetooth, certain folks are going to lose focus on the task at hand - not engaging anyone's airbags. How many people are even AWARE they can't do it safely? They ALL think they can handle it. I have asked around. Not one person ever told me their phone use hampered their ability to drive.
My phone takes messages - both text and voice. This is how I handle it. Since I am not expecting a call from the President asking how I feel about the next imminent drone strike, there is no need for me to be instantly available to anyone.
Last edited by JoeyBike; 11-20-14 at 08:38 AM.
11-20-14, 08:24 AM
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago Western 'burbs
Posts: 1,065
Bikes: 1993 NOS Mt Shasta Tempest, Motobecane Fantom Cross CX, Dahon Speed D7, Dahon Vector P8, Bullitt Superfly
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Police should be empowered to sieze and destroy not every cell phone that they see a driver using, but any cell phone in a car that is within reach of a driver. Cops should be equipped with a modified version of Vise Grip Locking C Clamp #20 , refitted with diamond-treaded, meat tenderizer type jaw pads. That'd crush any cell phone in existence with pretty minimal hand effort I should think.
11-20-14, 09:46 AM
#56
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
One in five are using a hand-held, non-Bluetooth phone behind the wheel at any given time. I sometimes count them as I see them. On the Interstate, my wife handles that count for me. "Watch out...she is on the phone!"..."Watch out...he's on the phone!".............
I'm not too worried about people talking while driving. It's looking away from the road for whatever reason that freaks me out.
On the other hand, my job requires an unhealthy amount of multitasking. I can juggle a lot of tasks and thoughts. But occasionally while driving under certain conditions (usually lasting one minute or less) I have to ask my wife to stop talking to me because I can not process what she is saying AND keep an eye on everything going on around me - usually on high speed freeways with lots of traffic, merging, etc. Even knowing that I can multitask with the best of them, I don't/can't do it behind the wheel of a car at high speed under certain conditions.
So what about the dingbat who can't walk and chew gum at the same time? How are they going to accomplish the multitasking without engaging an air bag sooner than later? Certainly some phone users are more dangerous than others. But even with Bluetooth, certain folks are going to lose focus on the task at hand - not engaging anyone's airbags. How many people are even AWARE they can't do it safely? They ALL think they can handle it. I have asked around. Not one person ever told me their phone use hampered their ability to drive.
My phone takes messages - both text and voice. This is how I handle it. Since I am not expecting a call from the President asking how I feel about the next imminent drone strike, there is no need for me to be instantly available to anyone.
I'm not too worried about people talking while driving. It's looking away from the road for whatever reason that freaks me out.
On the other hand, my job requires an unhealthy amount of multitasking. I can juggle a lot of tasks and thoughts. But occasionally while driving under certain conditions (usually lasting one minute or less) I have to ask my wife to stop talking to me because I can not process what she is saying AND keep an eye on everything going on around me - usually on high speed freeways with lots of traffic, merging, etc. Even knowing that I can multitask with the best of them, I don't/can't do it behind the wheel of a car at high speed under certain conditions.
So what about the dingbat who can't walk and chew gum at the same time? How are they going to accomplish the multitasking without engaging an air bag sooner than later? Certainly some phone users are more dangerous than others. But even with Bluetooth, certain folks are going to lose focus on the task at hand - not engaging anyone's airbags. How many people are even AWARE they can't do it safely? They ALL think they can handle it. I have asked around. Not one person ever told me their phone use hampered their ability to drive.
My phone takes messages - both text and voice. This is how I handle it. Since I am not expecting a call from the President asking how I feel about the next imminent drone strike, there is no need for me to be instantly available to anyone.
But cell phones... nah, they can't be a problem, no way, no how.
BTW Joey... the president just left a message.
11-20-14, 12:19 PM
#57
Señior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,749
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
ISTM that being convicted of using a cell phone while driving is as good a metric for careless driving as most any other. Actuaries will be able to tell for sure though.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
11-20-14, 01:10 PM
#58
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
If careless drivers (however they are outed) are to be fined. monetarily punished, the recipients of the money should be the government agencies enforcing the traffic laws, not the stockholders/owners of insurance companies.
Combine your Good Idea with those of some other recent posters on this thread, insurance rates should be jacked up for drivers carrying a passenger, because they might be distracted by them. Same goes for radios, gloveboxes, cigarette lighters and beverage holders, all of which may cause driver distraction.
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 11-20-14 at 01:15 PM.
11-20-14, 02:18 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
There is even a paint that can be effective. Confusing when riding a bike on a road with narrow shoulders. I thought something was going in my drivechain until another rider who knew about it informed me.
11-20-14, 02:29 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
The parallel with drinking and driving is disturbing, when it comes to personal responsibility and the level of impairment.
We (in the US) go about dealing with drunk driving exactly backwards, IMO. We should issue special drivers licenses that allow people to still drive, but not buy alcohol. This would be much easier, since the main enforcement becomes at the store/bar. They simply have to card everyone as a matter of course (this would help with underage drinking in a small way as well). I wish I could think of a similar way to do the same with phones. I don't think we have the tech to shut down a phone that in a car, but maybe it wouldn't be too hard to develop.
The reason for this is primarily that in the US (unlike more civilized countries...
) there are very few places were driving is optional (yes, I understand the irony of saying this on a biking forum, but bear with me). So most people still 'need' their vehicles for driving to work and day to day stuff. I don't like it, but that's sort of where we're stuck. So address the problem of drinking, and being distracted, but allow people to maintain their employment and continue to use their cars as needed (with a huge caveat on 'needed').
We (in the US) go about dealing with drunk driving exactly backwards, IMO. We should issue special drivers licenses that allow people to still drive, but not buy alcohol. This would be much easier, since the main enforcement becomes at the store/bar. They simply have to card everyone as a matter of course (this would help with underage drinking in a small way as well). I wish I could think of a similar way to do the same with phones. I don't think we have the tech to shut down a phone that in a car, but maybe it wouldn't be too hard to develop.
The reason for this is primarily that in the US (unlike more civilized countries...
) there are very few places were driving is optional (yes, I understand the irony of saying this on a biking forum, but bear with me). So most people still 'need' their vehicles for driving to work and day to day stuff. I don't like it, but that's sort of where we're stuck. So address the problem of drinking, and being distracted, but allow people to maintain their employment and continue to use their cars as needed (with a huge caveat on 'needed').Like it would be difficult for adults to get booze lacking a license.
But lets forget how easy getting a few beers from friends would be.
I really was into Tequilla at one point. Figure 10 different kinds. Figure each bottle half full. Add 2 more for brands I really likes and got on sale.
Figure about 2/3 rds of that for rum.
Figure a half empty bottle of a dozen other liquors.
Add in that I'm in one, down from 2 wine clubs so 3-4 bottles magically appear ever couple of months.
I know I have more than most, but any drinker who throws the occasional party has far more.
11-20-14, 02:32 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
In the meantime just authorize large rate increases and cash windfalls to Insurance companies based on Internet gossip and Urban legends, rather than any accident related metrics or stats, eh?
If careless drivers (however they are outed) are to be fined. monetarily punished, the recipients of the money should be the government agencies enforcing the traffic laws, not the stockholders/owners of insurance companies.
Combine your Good Idea with those of some other recent posters on this thread, insurance rates should be jacked up for drivers carrying a passenger, because they might be distracted by them. Same goes for radios, gloveboxes, cigarette lighters and beverage holders, all of which may cause driver distraction.
If careless drivers (however they are outed) are to be fined. monetarily punished, the recipients of the money should be the government agencies enforcing the traffic laws, not the stockholders/owners of insurance companies.
Combine your Good Idea with those of some other recent posters on this thread, insurance rates should be jacked up for drivers carrying a passenger, because they might be distracted by them. Same goes for radios, gloveboxes, cigarette lighters and beverage holders, all of which may cause driver distraction.
It is bad news however for drivers who get ticketed for cell phone use and are not able to keep the ticket hidden.
11-20-14, 03:40 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
I’m guessing that you haven’t served below is the oath for enlisted personal and officers. Please tell me what the first line states.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
”I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Office (for officers):
”I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
As a Veteran I DO find feldman’s statement to be VERY offensive.
Last edited by Digital_Cowboy; 11-20-14 at 03:50 PM.
11-20-14, 03:44 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
One in five are using a hand-held, non-Bluetooth phone behind the wheel at any given time. I sometimes count them as I see them. On the Interstate, my wife handles that count for me. "Watch out...she is on the phone!"..."Watch out...he's on the phone!".............
I'm not too worried about people talking while driving. It's looking away from the road for whatever reason that freaks me out.
On the other hand, my job requires an unhealthy amount of multitasking. I can juggle a lot of tasks and thoughts. But occasionally while driving under certain conditions (usually lasting one minute or less) I have to ask my wife to stop talking to me because I can not process what she is saying AND keep an eye on everything going on around me - usually on high speed freeways with lots of traffic, merging, etc. Even knowing that I can multitask with the best of them, I don't/can't do it behind the wheel of a car at high speed under certain conditions.
So what about the dingbat who can't walk and chew gum at the same time? How are they going to accomplish the multitasking without engaging an air bag sooner than later? Certainly some phone users are more dangerous than others. But even with Bluetooth, certain folks are going to lose focus on the task at hand - not engaging anyone's airbags. How many people are even AWARE they can't do it safely? They ALL think they can handle it. I have asked around. Not one person ever told me their phone use hampered their ability to drive.
My phone takes messages - both text and voice. This is how I handle it. Since I am not expecting a call from the President asking how I feel about the next imminent drone strike, there is no need for me to be instantly available to anyone.
I'm not too worried about people talking while driving. It's looking away from the road for whatever reason that freaks me out.
On the other hand, my job requires an unhealthy amount of multitasking. I can juggle a lot of tasks and thoughts. But occasionally while driving under certain conditions (usually lasting one minute or less) I have to ask my wife to stop talking to me because I can not process what she is saying AND keep an eye on everything going on around me - usually on high speed freeways with lots of traffic, merging, etc. Even knowing that I can multitask with the best of them, I don't/can't do it behind the wheel of a car at high speed under certain conditions.
So what about the dingbat who can't walk and chew gum at the same time? How are they going to accomplish the multitasking without engaging an air bag sooner than later? Certainly some phone users are more dangerous than others. But even with Bluetooth, certain folks are going to lose focus on the task at hand - not engaging anyone's airbags. How many people are even AWARE they can't do it safely? They ALL think they can handle it. I have asked around. Not one person ever told me their phone use hampered their ability to drive.
My phone takes messages - both text and voice. This is how I handle it. Since I am not expecting a call from the President asking how I feel about the next imminent drone strike, there is no need for me to be instantly available to anyone.
I’m not debating whether or not people are using cell phones, or even how often that they are using them. Just that with phones being able to sync up with cars so that people can talk through their cars sound system, and using various bluetooth devices. That number is likely much higher then you realize.
11-20-14, 03:55 PM
#64
20+mph Commuter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greenville. SC USA
Posts: 7,517
Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1434 Post(s)
Liked 331 Times
in
219 Posts
Joey,
I’m not debating whether or not people are using cell phones, or even how often that they are using them. Just that with phones being able to sync up with cars so that people can talk through their cars sound system, and using various bluetooth devices. That number is likely much higher then you realize.
I’m not debating whether or not people are using cell phones, or even how often that they are using them. Just that with phones being able to sync up with cars so that people can talk through their cars sound system, and using various bluetooth devices. That number is likely much higher then you realize.
11-20-14, 05:10 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697
Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Combine your Good Idea with those of some other recent posters on this thread, insurance rates should be jacked up for drivers carrying a passenger, because they might be distracted by them. Same goes for radios, gloveboxes, cigarette lighters and beverage holders, all of which may cause driver distraction.
11-20-14, 05:14 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697
Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Oh. For sure. I am only seeing the hand-held users. I was stopped at a red light (yes, now and then I do that) just this morning and the young woman in the car next to me had the phone going through the car speakers. LOUD. I could hear every word of the conversation which, frankly, I almost prefer getting run over.
11-20-14, 05:34 PM
#67
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
11-20-14, 05:43 PM
#68
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
I have no doubt of the increasing fear and even paranoia some people express over this issue, at least as expressed on the various lists on BF, but that is not how actual risk is determined.
11-20-14, 05:44 PM
#69
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
There is one "veteran status" that does get me riled up... it is the guys standing around at the corners with the hand lettered Vet sign while begging for cash. Sorry Vet, pull your behind up by your bootstraps and move on.
11-20-14, 05:58 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697
Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Especially when there are so many of them who can't stand anymore, but still manage to roll their wheelchairs into work.
11-20-14, 08:38 PM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1638 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times
in
495 Posts
02 Giant,
I’m guessing that you haven’t served below is the oath for enlisted personal and officers. Please tell me what the first line states.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
”I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Office (for officers):
”I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
As a Veteran I DO find feldman’s statement to be VERY offensive.
I’m guessing that you haven’t served below is the oath for enlisted personal and officers. Please tell me what the first line states.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
”I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Office (for officers):
”I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
As a Veteran I DO find feldman’s statement to be VERY offensive.
I would guess you are selective in what comments or actions about the Constitution you take as offensive.
__________________
nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
11-21-14, 01:20 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chico, Cali
Posts: 541
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
02 Giant,
I’m guessing that you haven’t served below is the oath for enlisted personal and officers. Please tell me what the first line states.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
”I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Office (for officers):
”I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
As a Veteran I DO find feldman’s statement to be VERY offensive.
I’m guessing that you haven’t served below is the oath for enlisted personal and officers. Please tell me what the first line states.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
”I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Office (for officers):
”I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
As a Veteran I DO find feldman’s statement to be VERY offensive.
11-21-14, 08:57 AM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Scalarville
Posts: 1,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Feldman,
Wow, who the F pissed in your Wheaties?!? Piss on the Constitution? Son, those are fighting words to all of the Active Duty Soldiers and Veterans on this site. We didn’t enlist to have the Constitution trampled on.
Why stop at destroying cell phones, why not give the cops the power to put a bullet into an engine block, or shot the driver? Destroying all cell phones “within” reach of the driver is going too far.
What if those cell phones are turned off? What if those cell phones do not have cell service? Should they be destroyed as well? What about tablets and laptops, or GPS’, will they also be destroyed? Where do you draw the line?
We have due process in this country for a reason, and no one can just destroy private property whenever they feel like it.
And again, I have to say, saying “Piss on the Constitution” is fighting words to Active Duty Soliders and the Veterans on this site. And is NOT what we signed up for, we signed up to PROTECT the Constitution.
Also as you’ve been asked, just what kind of a police state do you want to live in where the police have the power to destroy private property without due process?
Wow, who the F pissed in your Wheaties?!? Piss on the Constitution? Son, those are fighting words to all of the Active Duty Soldiers and Veterans on this site. We didn’t enlist to have the Constitution trampled on.
Why stop at destroying cell phones, why not give the cops the power to put a bullet into an engine block, or shot the driver? Destroying all cell phones “within” reach of the driver is going too far.
What if those cell phones are turned off? What if those cell phones do not have cell service? Should they be destroyed as well? What about tablets and laptops, or GPS’, will they also be destroyed? Where do you draw the line?
We have due process in this country for a reason, and no one can just destroy private property whenever they feel like it.
And again, I have to say, saying “Piss on the Constitution” is fighting words to Active Duty Soliders and the Veterans on this site. And is NOT what we signed up for, we signed up to PROTECT the Constitution.
Also as you’ve been asked, just what kind of a police state do you want to live in where the police have the power to destroy private property without due process?
+1. Not just Vets, Cowboy. Anyone who cares about living in a free society. Anyone.
It is really easy, and Constitutional, to have phones turn off (except for 911 calls) when in motion. Wanna make a call, surf the net, text, etc.? Pull off and stop. Inconvenient? Yep, sure is. So is having to wait until you're home to crack that beer.
What about passengers, you may ask? Them too.
Last edited by delcrossv; 11-21-14 at 09:04 AM.
11-21-14, 09:54 AM
#74
An un-oiled squeaky wheel
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 480
Bikes: 2013 Wilier Triestina Gran Turismo, Mercian King of Mercia (Floppy); Fuji 500X; GT backwoods; Tour de Suisse; Diamond Back Interval
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Either you are over reacting emotionally or you're a trolling idiot. (I can't believe I actually called someone here the "i" word.) There goes the battery in flames from instant short circuit and sharp fragments of plastic and glass all over the place. What kind of police state do you want to live in that gives anyone the right to destroy personal property at a whim. Can you imagine a cop destroying or confiscating some ladies makeup case because she has it in her purse? How about your water bottle or coffee from Mcdonalds. LOL. Give me a break.
We have made huge advances dealing with drunken driving, no open bottles, almost going overboard with the "W" plates, and even that won't stop the addicted drunks from getting behind the wheel. Extremely sever court ordered penalties, hiked insurance rates, etc are the only real deterrent and that gets out of control also.
We have made huge advances dealing with drunken driving, no open bottles, almost going overboard with the "W" plates, and even that won't stop the addicted drunks from getting behind the wheel. Extremely sever court ordered penalties, hiked insurance rates, etc are the only real deterrent and that gets out of control also.
Or he was being sarcastic or hyperbolic or some other multi-syllabic word. Shot out of a cannon this morning eh?
Last edited by kaisersling; 11-21-14 at 09:57 AM.
