Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offense?

Mason66 · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
Fair enough, I will acquiesce that I do not know the police officer's motivation, can you give me an example of some non-punitive motivation for this situation because I cannot think of any.
Keep in mind the context:
1. car is legally operable
2. there is a legal driver able and willing to relocate the vehicle right there on the spot. (passenger)
3. The police officer refuses to allow the passenger to take possession of the car which would both A. Extend the period of time it take to vacate the vehicle from the roadway (waiting for the tow to arrive). and B. Prevent the passenger from a completely legal activity (borrowing and driving a car).

If the owner does not have a valid drivers license, the car is not insured. Is it OK for a licensed driver to drive an uninsured car on the street? In most if not all states it is not.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
Thank you for proving me right.

"since that person broke the law" shows you presume guilt as opposed to innocence. At the time of arrest they are only a suspect. It is up to the courts to determine guilt or innocence.

your words: "towing away a car that belongs to the person that broke the law is SINGULAR punishment"
Since you actually define the towing of the vehicle as a punishment against the driver. You are punishing them before they have a chance to defend themselves in court and that is the very definition of a violation of due process.

In your reality it is apparent that people are guilty until proven innocent.

Wow fantasy is fun isnt it? if they have no licenses VERIFIED BY THE COMPUTER SYSTEM they are guilty and in some freak low percentage case they are not guilty they get thier car back LMAO

this is called reality, do you not arrest a person and take away their gun that looks like they are robbing a bank until AFTER the trail????? of course not or in this case do you not feel arresting them and taking their gun is SINGULAR PUNISHMENT because that wouldnt match your broken wrong logic??? Im sure youll have some excuse why THAT case is "DIFFERENT" LOL

dont play stupid semantics and fantasy word games because it doesnt fool anybody who is logical and lives in reality LMAO

Towing their car is COMMON SENSE if the officer feel s its needed, nice try but you logic fails big time, with each post you prove how broken your logic is more and more and its hilarious. In reality not MINE, just reality, common sense is practiced lol

tell me that cool part about proving YOU right again????? :lamo

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Mason66 said:
You can say nothing is lost but with a $250.00 towing fee and $30.00 (low) a day for storage, it isn't hard to see that a lot of people will never be able to get thier car out of the pound.

really?
THEN DON'T BREAK THE LAW! lMAO

if you didn't break the law and by some low percentage they are innocent then those fees are not be your responsibility.

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Manc Skipper said:
This eternal nitpicking is getting beyond silly. You are stopped while driving a car, and have no licence to do so. You have been caught in the act. It's hard to imagine a scenario where anyone could be more evidently guilty. QED.

This isn't nitpicking, until the driver has his day in court and is found guilty, the presumption is that he is innocent and must be afforded his right to contest the charges.

Manc Skipper said:
The police are empowered to give fixed penalties for motoring offences such as this.

This is not true. The police are allowed to arrest or cite people for suspected criminal activity. Those citations / charges come with penalties and the court system is empowered to determine what penalty is appropriate.

Manc Skipper said:
One such "penalty" is having your car towed to prevent further offences from being committed.

And since this penalty is being applied before the suspect has been afforded his opportunity to contest the charges I do not understand how you can argue that it wouldn't be a clear violation of due process.

Manc Skipper said:
Apart from the poor likelihood that a licensed passenger is also insured to drive your car, allowing them to do so open up the possibility that you will switch places with them once the cops have left the scene.

I don't know about where you live but driving without a license in Illinois will always get you a ride in the back of the squad car straight to the police station, i.e. arrested and booked. No one is arguing for their release, only that the state does not apply any punitive action until guilt or innocence can be determined. Also, I would argue the whole "poor likelihood that a licensed passenger is also insured to drive your car" if false but ultimately it doesn't matter as of course if there were no other people able to legally operate the vehicle then the vehicle should be towed. No one was ever arguing for that the vehicle should be placed into the hands of someone not legally able to operate the car.

Manc Skipper said:
Towing ensures that the car and driver are both legal before they are reunited.

It most certainly does not. Driver gets arrested for driving on a without a lisence. Car gets towed. The driver along with a different licensed driver retrieve the car the next day from impound. Driver and car are reunited, driver still has the potential of being illegal to drive.

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Mason66 said:
You need to have a valid license to have insurance which means that if the friver is unlicensed, the car is uninsured even though the policy is paid.

This is also untrue. An owner of a vehicle does not need to have a license in order to ensure it. He is just not allowed to legally drive it. Other people however are. Just think of any situation where a person who is not legal to drive, owns a vehicle so the can employ people to use the vehicle on their behalf for their benefit. The disabled and elderly are but two categories of people who find themselves in these situations often.

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

MaggieD said:
This is just silly. But I guess it started with defining towing the unlicensed driver's car as punishment. That's an unintended consequence of towing the car, isn't it? Inconvenience in the face of arrest. Too bad. And let me understand. In your world, an unlicensed driver should get a ticket for driving without a license and then be allowed to drive merrily away. After all, by your logic, he hasn't been found guilty yet. ??

I have never claimed that, in fact my assumption was that the driver, when found suspected of driving without a license, be arrested and brought to the station for booking / processing. Furthermore I agree that towing is not meant to be punitive, i.e. the states only interest is the quickest way to remove the hazard / blockage to the roadway, thus it would be in the states interest to allow any legal situation that expedites this process, say like a legal passenger removing the car relatively immediately.

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Le sigh...

Objective-J said:
Wow fantasy is fun isnt it? if they have no licenses VERIFIED BY THE COMPUTER SYSTEM they are guilty and in some freak low percentage case they are not guilty they get thier car back LMAO

I get it they are guilty until proven innocent.... point taken. That is the exact situation you just described with this statement. It is the antithesis of due process.

Objective-J said:
this is called reality, do you not arrest a person and take away their gun that looks like they are robbing a bank until AFTER the trail????? of course not or in this case do you not feel arresting them and taking their gun is SINGULAR PUNISHMENT because that wouldnt match your broken wrong logic??? Im sure youll have some excuse why THAT case is "DIFFERENT" LOL

Look it's just a bad analogy you keep trying to employ its not apples to apples and although I have tried ad nauseum to show you the difference you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.

Objective-J said:
dont play stupid semantics and fantasy word games because it doesnt fool anybody who is logical and lives in reality LMAO

was that a cut and paste from my previous post? your welcome for the help.

Objective-J said:
Towing their car is COMMON SENSE if the officer feel s its needed, nice try but you logic fails big time, with each post you prove how broken your logic is more and more and its hilarious. In reality not MINE, just reality, common sense is practiced lol

tell me that cool part about proving YOU right again????? :lamo

I don't need to you're doing the job for me.

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Objective-J said:
really?
THEN DON'T BREAK THE LAW! lMAO

if you didn't break the law and by some low percentage they are innocent then those fees are not be your responsibility.

Once again this is your model...
Presume guilt and apply punishment. If found innocent make restitution.

Quick question does the police officer or the court system determine guilt of a crime?

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
Le sigh...

I get it they are guilty until proven innocent.... point taken. That is the exact situation you just described with this statement. It is the antithesis of due process.

Look it's just a bad analogy you keep trying to employ its not apples to apples and although I have tried ad nauseum to show you the difference you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.

was that a cut and paste from my previous post? your welcome for the help.

I don't need to you're doing the job for me.

translation: you cant argue against me or back up your points so you'll just continue to ignore facts and reality, got it LMAO

let me know when you have something that is reality based and not fantasy land

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
Once again this is your model...
Presume guilt and apply punishment. If found innocent make restitution.

Quick question does the police officer or the court system determine guilt of a crime?

WRONG again lol
this is not MY model, this is reality, i dont know where you live at but this is reality, nice try but no matter how much you cry you wont be right.

If a cop pulls you over for wreckless driving he gets to take your car for awhile
if a cop sees you beating a person up, you go to jail
if a cop see you raping a women, you go to jail for a while
if a cop sees you with a concealed weapon and you cant explain, you go to jail AND your gun gets taken for while

this REALITY and has nothing to do with "ME" no matter how many times you lie and say it does LOL

again I repeat please let me know when you have something based in reality and save the dramatics and lies for somebody that will buy it lol

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Objective-J said:
translation: i cant argue against you or back up my points so ill just continue to ignore facts and reality, got it LMO

let me know when you have something that is reality based and not fantasy land

No it's more like I have already addressed this issue too many time to count. go back and re-read the relevant responses, or don't, it's up to you.

You're making yourself look silly. First you argue for mandatory towing, then claim it shouldn't be. Then you claim the towing isn't punitive in nature then you define it as a punishment. During which this whole time you are claiming that this doesn't violate due process, while making a case for "Wow fantasy is fun isnt it? if they have no licenses VERIFIED BY THE COMPUTER SYSTEM they are guilty and in some freak low percentage case they are not guilty they get thier car back LMAO" which is the very definition of a due process violation.

Trying to have a conversation with you is like clapping with one hand.

d0gbreath · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Mason66 said:
If the owner does not have a valid drivers license, the car is not insured. Is it OK for a licensed driver to drive an uninsured car on the street? In most if not all states it is not.

You've posted this twice. I wish I knew where you live because; here the car is insured. The owner does not have to have a license to insure the vehicle.

Disclaimer: I know Yahoo answers is not always correct:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111011192943AAlywNT

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
No it's more like I have already addressed this issue too many time to count. go back and re-read the relevant responses, or don't, it's up to you.

You're making yourself look silly. First you argue for mandatory towing, then claim it shouldn't be. Then you claim the towing isn't punitive in nature then you define it as a punishment. During which this whole time you are claiming that this doesn't violate due process, while making a case for "Wow fantasy is fun isnt it? if they have no licenses VERIFIED BY THE COMPUTER SYSTEM they are guilty and in some freak low percentage case they are not guilty they get thier car back LMAO" which is the very definition of a due process violation.

Trying to have a conversation with you is like clapping with one hand.

never argued mandatory towing across the board one single time that is lie
and it is not a violation of due process that is another lie
I dont think its punishment either nor did i ever directly say so I was quoting what another person said and told them in the conversation if they think it is punishment its not collective its singular LMAO not that I myself think it is punishment this is yet another lie by you

talk about making yourself look silly you do it more and more with every post, how could you just post lies like you do???? LOL do you think all these post disappear??
its very humorous how you take bits and pieces of conversations instead of the whole conversation and what it means in REALITY

but please keep it up this is hilarious watching you struggle and twist things, does this usually work for you? do you usually encounter people that have no idea what reality is?

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Objective-J said:
...
and it is not a violation of due process that is another lie
...

Here, this should clear up any remaining issues requiring mandatory towing under any circumstance:

'...
U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow ruled Nov. 16 that the ordinance, which requires police to impound the car of any driver without a valid driver's license or insurance, violates the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizure of property because it does not allow police to consider whether towing the car is necessary to maintain public safety. "As a consequence, the seizure ordinance is unconstitutional," she wrote.
...'

It appears that a federal district judge would disagree with you.

roguenuke · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Manc Skipper said:
This eternal nitpicking is getting beyond silly. You are stopped while driving a car, and have no licence to do so. You have been caught in the act. It's hard to imagine a scenario where anyone could be more evidently guilty. QED. The police are empowered to give fixed penalties for motoring offences such as this. One such "penalty" is having your car towed to prevent further offences from being committed. Apart from the poor likelihood that a licensed passenger is also insured to drive your car, allowing them to do so open up the possibility that you will switch places with them once the cops have left the scene. Towing ensures that the car and driver are both legal before they are reunited.

Most insurance policies allow for a temporary driver of a car any time.

Plus, some cars are owned by more than one person, and that other person has every right to legally drive that car. It is quite possible that a person just doesn't realize that their license is expired or that perhaps someone has stolen their identity or maybe they are military and a police officer doesn't know that their state allows a military person to drive on an expired license (for at least a short time) as long as they have either their military ID or a card from the military about it (or perhaps the person forgot their military ID or their card but do have an expired license).

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

swit said:
here, this should clear up any remaining issues requiring mandatory towing under any circumstance:

'...
U.s. District judge joan lefkow ruled nov. 16 that the ordinance, which requires police to impound the car of any driver without a valid driver's license or insurance, violates the 4th amendment's protection against unreasonable seizure of property because it does not allow police to consider whether towing the car is necessary to maintain public safety. "as a consequence, the seizure ordinance is unconstitutional," she wrote.
...'

it appears that a federal district judge would disagree with you.

hahahahahahaha did you not read your own link :lamo

here ill bold the above for you

thats EXACTLY what ive been saying, i want it left up to the cop LMAO and thats what that judge wants too, she agrees WITH me 100%

again why do you lie and make stuff up I have said repeatedly I want it left up to the cop and whatever the cop does Im fine with, the only time I siad id like to see it mandatory is if there are multiple offenses

you ignored the other lies and tried to cherry pick one and are still wrong LMAO

thanks for again lying and making yourself look foolish

WOW simply WOW:laughat:

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

I was waiting for this...

Objective-J said:
hahahahahahaha did you not read your own link :lamo

Yup I sure did.

Objective-J said:
here ill bold the above for you

Thank you

Objective-J said:
thats EXACTLY what ive been saying, i want it left up to the cop LMAO and thats what that judge wants too, she agrees WITH me 100%

Except you made the argument for people with prior violations to have mandatory towing applied... According to the federal ruling this would violate due process protections the actual meat and potatoes of what we are arguing here. More to the point it affirms that the determination by the police officer only takes public safety into account and unless said police officer can reasonable disallow an otherwise legal person (passenger) from driving the vehicle, based solely on public safety issues, then it would also be a violation of due process. Basically unless the Police officer can look at the passenger and "this person is not safe to drive this vehicle" it would violate the driver's right to due process. My exact argument.

Objective-J said:
again why do you lie and make stuff up I have said repeatedly I want it left up to the cop and whatever the cop does Im fine with, the only time I siad id like to see it mandatory is if there are multiple offenses

And where did I make stuff up? Prior offenses or not this ruling still applies. Mandatory impounding of a vehicle even with prior offenses would violate due process apparently by this judges decision.

Objective-J said:
you ignored the other lies and tried to cherry pick one and are still wrong LMAO

No I didn't, I just showed you where your incessant assertions that mandatory towing does not infringe upon due process is completely wrong

Objective-J said:
thanks for again lying and making yourself look foolish

WOW simply WOW:laughat:

Please show me where I lied.... you keep making this accusation and I don't see where you come up with it.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
I was waiting for this...

Yup I sure did.

Thank you

Except you made the argument for people with prior violations to have mandatory towing applied... According to the federal ruling this would violate due process protections the actual meat and potatoes of what we are arguing here. More to the point it affirms that the determination by the police officer only takes public safety into account and unless said police officer can reasonable disallow an otherwise legal person (passenger) from driving the vehicle, based solely on public safety issues, then it would also be a violation of due process. Basically unless the Police officer can look at the passenger and "this person is not safe to drive this vehicle" it would violate the driver's right to due process. My exact argument.

And where did I make stuff up? Prior offenses or not this ruling still applies. Mandatory impounding of a vehicle even with prior offenses would violate due process apparently by this judges decision.

No I didn't, I just showed you where your incessant assertions that mandatory towing does not infringe upon due process is completely wrong

Please show me where I lied.... you keep making this accusation and I don't see where you come up with it.

seriously, are you just trolling at this point how do you ignore everything said here and pick and choose

you lied 3 times and did NOTHING to change that fact except try to play word games, pick and choose PARTS of sentences and make up more lies LMAO

the 3 lies i pointed out in post 188 still stand you lied all 3 times and that is 100% fact lol
"never argued mandatory towing across the board one single time that is lie
and it is not a violation of due process that is another lie
I dont think its punishment either nor did i ever directly say so I was quoting what another person said and told them in the conversation if they think it is punishment its not collective its singular LMAO not that I myself think it is punishment this is yet another lie by you"

now again, like i asked you before, if youd like to go back and revise your statements, man up and admit you are very knee jerk, misspoke and were wrong have at it otherwise no matter how much you try to make up and save face I wont let you LOL

you keep trying to "ADD"(lie) and then say but but but, sorry it doesnt work because all these post stay right here lol

Ill keep waiting for some truth or something reality based though because this is some of the funniest **** Ive seen in a while!

hopefully you dont run out of quarters!:spin

r make yourself dizzy with all the spinning you are trying and failing at

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Ok, I will play your silly game...

Objective-J said:
seriously, are you just trolling at this point how do you ignore everything said here and pick and choose

I would tend to bet that dollars to doughnuts people reading this thread would ascribe the term trolling to your posts more so than mine.

Objective-J said:
you lied 3 times and did NOTHING to change that fact except try to play word games, pick and choose PARTS of sentences and make up more lies LMAO

I went back and double checked just in case you were right... I must admit defeat in this one. in post #128 I did in fact do this.
in post #127 You wrote:
"5.) actually you did you said its punitive BEFORE due process and neither are true post 110 and 122 just to name 2"
My response in post #128 was:
"5.) actually you did you said its punitive BEFORE due process and neither are true"
I left off "post 110 and 122 just to name 2"
that was the one and only time I didn't quote an entire sentence.
Of course I don't see how that somehow misconstrues the point you were making to lead you to an accusation of dishonesty or cherry-picking. Heck, you didn't even feel it necessary to bring it up in your rebuttal.

Objective-J said:
the 3 lies i pointed out in post 188 still stand you lied all 3 times and that is 100% fact lol

OK lets analyze these.

Objective-J said:
"never argued mandatory towing across the board one single time that is lie

Only thing I ever pointed out was that you agreed with someone's statement (the OP) making the case for ("across the board" as you put it) mandatory towing.... I even directly quoted it, without omission, so how can that be considered a lie? So unless you can find a post... ANY post of mine where I made such an accusation, I am all ears.

Objective-J said:

and it is not a violation of due process that is another lie

Click to expand...

What are you even trying to say here?
That mandatory towing is not a violation of due process and that I am lying that it is. Ummm ok well a federal judge seems to agree with my position.
Or
that you never made the claim that mandatory towing is not a violation of due process?
I really don't think you want to go down this road (for a hint go back and read your posts #106, #111, #117 (implied), #119(implied), #121 (Specifically), #123, #125, and #132) all show that you have in fact said that mandatory towing does not infringe upon due process.

Objective-J said:

I dont think its punishment either nor did i ever directly say so I was quoting what another person said and told them in the conversation if they think it is punishment its not collective its singular LMAO not that I myself think it is punishment this is yet another lie by you"

Click to expand...

Umm you really should go back and read what you wrote. Post #147 (even MaggieD's response (post #167) in opposition to my position clearly shows that even she thinks that you defined it as punishment). This clearly shows your only objection was the use of the terms singular versus collective (i.e. that it is only punishing the driver and not the passengers), there was no language in that particular post suggesting that it was not punishment imposed upon the driver. And post #157 backs up this idea of seizure being punishment only in this case the hypothetical was that it was a house. Once again the only thing you were disputing was the singular vs. collective nature of the punishment with no language disputing that it even was punishment in the first place.
At least if the assertion was these situations are not punishment there was no language in them suggesting otherwise. If this is the case you should learn to be more clear.

Objective-J said:
now again, like i asked you before, if youd like to go back and revise your statements, man up and admit you are very knee jerk, misspoke and were wrong have at it otherwise no matter how much you try to make up and save face I wont let you LOL

I never made anything up. There is no need for me to revise any statement I have made.

Objective-J said:
you keep trying to "ADD"(lie) and then say but but but, sorry it doesnt work because all these post stay right here lol

Your are right... they do I suggest you go back and start reading the stuff you wrote.

Objective-J said:
Ill keep waiting for some truth or something reality based though because this is some of the funniest **** Ive seen in a while!

hopefully you dont run out of quarters!:spinr make yourself dizzy with all the spinning you are trying and failing at

Ok, well perhaps you are correct. Any chance I can get a second opinion here? Does anyone else think I am trolling, lying, being dishonest, spinning, etc... ? Or is this just a baseless claim that Ob-J is making?

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
Ok, I will play your silly game...

I would tend to bet that dollars to doughnuts people reading this thread would ascribe the term trolling to your posts more so than mine.

I went back and double checked just in case you were right... I must admit defeat in this one. in post #128 I did in fact do this.
in post #127 You wrote:
"5.) actually you did you said its punitive BEFORE due process and neither are true post 110 and 122 just to name 2"
My response in post #128 was:
"5.) actually you did you said its punitive BEFORE due process and neither are true"
I left off "post 110 and 122 just to name 2"
that was the one and only time I didn't quote an entire sentence.
Of course I don't see how that somehow misconstrues the point you were making to lead you to an accusation of dishonesty or cherry-picking. Heck, you didn't even feel it necessary to bring it up in your rebuttal.

OK lets analyze these.

Only thing I ever pointed out was that you agreed with someone's statement (the OP) making the case for ("across the board" as you put it) mandatory towing.... I even directly quoted it, without omission, so how can that be considered a lie? So unless you can find a post... ANY post of mine where I made such an accusation, I am all ears.

What are you even trying to say here?
That mandatory towing is not a violation of due process and that I am lying that it is. Ummm ok well a federal judge seems to agree with my position.
Or
that you never made the claim that mandatory towing is not a violation of due process?
I really don't think you want to go down this road (for a hint go back and read your posts #106, #111, #117 (implied), #119(implied), #121 (Specifically), #123, #125, and #132) all show that you have in fact said that mandatory towing does not infringe upon due process.

Umm you really should go back and read what you wrote. Post #147 (even MaggieD's response (post #167) in opposition to my position clearly shows that even she thinks that you defined it as punishment). This clearly shows your only objection was the use of the terms singular versus collective (i.e. that it is only punishing the driver and not the passengers), there was no language in that particular post suggesting that it was not punishment imposed upon the driver. And post #157 backs up this idea of seizure being punishment only in this case the hypothetical was that it was a house. Once again the only thing you were disputing was the singular vs. collective nature of the punishment with no language disputing that it even was punishment in the first place.
At least if the assertion was these situations are not punishment there was no language in them suggesting otherwise. If this is the case you should learn to be more clear.

I never made anything up. There is no need for me to revise any statement I have made.

Your are right... they do I suggest you go back and start reading the stuff you wrote.

Ok, well perhaps you are correct. Any chance I can get a second opinion here? Does anyone else think I am trolling, lying, being dishonest, spinning, etc... ? Or is this just a baseless claim that Ob-J is making?

and after all this big post the fact remains you lied 3 times or misunderstood or misspoke 3 times and was trying to deny it :shrug:

I dont know how YOU define trolling but trolling will never be making a post, and then spending time correcting a poster over and over because they falsely interpreted it and/or make up lies about it and/or argue things never said by my me while laughing at how entertaining their confusion is. LOL Sorry

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Objective-J said:
and after all this big post the fact remains you lied 3 times or misunderstood or misspoke 3 times and was trying to deny it :shrug:

I dont know how YOU define trolling but trolling will never be making a post, and then spending time correcting a poster over and over because they falsely interpreted it and/or make up lies about it and/or argue things never said by my me while laughing at how entertaining their confusion is. LOL Sorry

I just addressed your accusations of dishonesty in my last post (#194). Care to rebut?

Clarification: please show the posts where I make these lies, misunderstandings or where I misspoke. You made the accusation I would like to know what you base it off of.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
I just addressed your accusations of dishonesty in my last post (#194). Care to rebut?

actually what you did is make up excuses on why you think it was ok to wrongly GUESS at what I said and ASSUME you knew what I meant and then argue stuff nobody said because you were looking at it from different wrong angles. LMAO

the fact remains you said I was for mandatory towing, not true and then you said my stance of leaving it up to the cop violates due process, not true, then you said I view it as punishment, not true

these are the facts, its not a accusation in the least LOL if you want to now back pedal and say YOU misunderstood or were looking at it from a different angle etc etc etc thats fine by me but the fact remains you made up 3 lies.

I wont concede to the facts, man up and admit you misspoke or ill just keep repeating this facts, either way the facts wont change tomorrow they will still remain

you need to go back and read those posts to I just looked it was you crying about MANDATORY towing which I dont want, I want it up to the cop and in doing so THAT PROCESS does not violate due process LMAO then you continue to say yes it does and refer to MANDATORY towing something I never said I wanted its actually quite funny watching you spin facts

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

For the really confused and people that want to make stuff up, THIS is and has ALWAYS been my stance.

Towing a car should be up to the cop and I support whatever he chooses to do.

I do not view leaving it up to the cop as violating due process.

If the driver would have multiple offenses for driving without a license I would support mandatory towing. especially DUIs, vehicular homicide, hit and runs, wreckless drving

I do not view towing as a form of punishment and it certainly isnt collective punishment.

this is where I have always stood, probably explains why I voted OTHER in the poll LMAO

if you would like to discuss these some of these opinions and facts and debate them please let me know.

Swit · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Objective-J said:
actually what you did is make up excuses on why you think it was ok to wrongly GUESS at what I said and ASSUME you knew what I meant and then argue stuff nobody said because you were looking at it from different wrong angles. LMAO

the fact remains you said I was for mandatory towing, not true and then you said my stance of leaving it up to the cop violates due process, not true, then you said I view it as punishment, not true

these are the facts, its not a accusation in the least LOL if you want to now back pedal and say YOU misunderstood or were looking at it from a different angle etc etc etc thats fine by me but the fact remains you made up 3 lies.

I wont concede to the facts, man up and admit you misspoke or ill just keep repeating this facts, either way the facts wont change tomorrow they will still remain

you need to go back and read those posts to I just looked it was you crying about MANDATORY towing which I dont want, I want it up to the cop and in doing so THAT PROCESS does not violate due process LMAO then you continue to say yes it does and refer to MANDATORY towing something I never said I wanted its actually quite funny watching you spin facts

I'll just take this entire post as an admission that you cannot back up your claim that I was ever being dishonest and or lying.

AGENT J · Jan 2, 2012

Re: Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offen

Swit said:
I'll just take this entire post as an admission that you cannot back up your claim that I was ever being dishonest and or lying.

thats a good move, take it that way and make up ANOTHER lie, it will allow you to bail out

but its already been backed up repeatedly, it is a fact you lied 3 times, this fact will not change whether you admit it or not, facts are funny like that, they dont need your approval LMAO

Sorry I didnt let you save face and you just couldnt man up and admit you kneejerked and misspoke :shrug: **** happens what can you LOL

thanks for the entertainment

Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offense?

Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offense?

Yes,but only if they can not find licensed driver to drive the vehicle home.

Yes,regardless if they can find a licensed driver to drive the vehicle home.

They should never tow a unlicensed driver's vehicle.

other

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Yellow Dog Democrat

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"