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

Swit · Dec 30, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
the PUNITIVE act is nothing more than your opinion and its dishonest. NOTHING more than that.

If there is someone willing, able and legal to relocate the car on hand. How can you claim that forcing the car to be towed, at the owners expense, be viewed as anything other than punitive?

Objective-J said:
The arrest you and lock you up BEFORE your trail does that violate due process?

No.

Objective-J said:
If that said driver is ALSO owner of the care or their insurance has that car registered then id be fine with it, other wise I support the cop in what ever he does.

I was running on the assumption that the car was legally operable. I.e. insured, registered, in good mechanical condition, etc...

Objective-J said:
Guy gets stopped an has an illegal concealed gun on him, im with him, im his buddy I have a CWP, should I be allowed to take the gun or does that violate due process?

You could not take possession of the firearm as a matter of law. It would immediately become material evidence in a felony gun possession charge.

Objective-J said:
please stop with the silliness

right back at ya.

Objective-J said:
in REALITY no due process is violated

I never made made a claim that in reality due process was being violated.

AGENT J · Dec 30, 2011

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

Swit said:
If there is someone willing, able and legal to relocate the car on hand. How can you claim that forcing the car to be towed, at the owners expense, be viewed as anything other than punitive?

2.) No.

3.)I was running on the assumption that the car was legally operable. I.e. insured, registered, in good mechanical condition, etc...

4.)You could not take possession of the firearm as a matter of law. It would immediately become material evidence in a felony gun possession charge.

right back at ya.

5.) I never made made a claim that in reality due process was being violated.

1.) easy i dont try to pretend i know exactly what the motive is based on my own bias opinion and why is it the cops duty to help out someone breaking the law or risk further broken laws, danger or damages? no matter how bad you want it to be calling it punitive is nothing more than your opinion.
2.) hypocrite by your logic then
3.) IMO thats not enough if its solely owned by the person who broke the law and no one present has that vehicle on their insurance
4.) so could the car also be used as evidence if the cop wants to, not felony but evidence :shrug:
5.) actually you did you said its punitive BEFORE due process and neither are true post 110 and 122 just to name 2

Swit · Dec 30, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
1.) easy i dont try to pretend i know exactly what the motive is based on my own bias opinion and why is it the cops duty to help out someone breaking the law or risk further broken laws, danger or damages? no matter how bad you want it to be calling it punitive is nothing more than your opinion.

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).

Objective-J said:
2.) hypocrite by your logic then

How so? Due process allows for suspects to held for some period of time (here in Illinois I believe its 48 hours) before either A. Offering the option of posting bail, or B. petitioning the court for a denial of bail based on some criteria (usually flight risk). As long as A or B occur within the legally codified time frame due process has not been violated.

Objective-J said:
3.) IMO thats not enough if its solely owned by the person who broke the law and no one present has that vehicle on their insurance

Well if the car is not insured then its not legally operable..... I don't understand where the confusion is. I even listed insured as a qualifier of legally operable. It really seems like you just being argumentative at this point.

Objective-J said:
4.) so could the car also be used as evidence if the cop wants to, not felony but evidence :shrug:

It doesn't matter whether its felony or not. What exactly is the automobile evidence of? If he was driving illegally (suspended license) no matter what car he was driving it would still be illegal. In this situation the object is disjoint from the action. There is nothing the car can show that has any relevance as to whether or not the person was driving illegally.

Objective-J said:
5.) actually you did you said its punitive BEFORE due process and neither are true

No, what I said was that IF the states action is punitive in nature, and IF it is applied before innocence or guilt is determined THEN a due process violation has occurred. I cannot explain it any clearer.

AGENT J · Dec 30, 2011

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

Swit said:
1.)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).

2.)How so? Due process allows for suspects to held for some period of time (here in Illinois I believe its 48 hours) before either A. Offering the option of posting bail, or B. petitioning the court for a denial of bail based on some criteria (usually flight risk). As long as A or B occur within the legally codified time frame due process has not been violated.

3.)Well if the car is not insured then its not legally operable..... I don't understand where the confusion is. I even listed insured as a qualifier of legally operable. It really seems like you just being argumentative at this point.

It doesn't matter whether its felony or not. What exactly is the automobile evidence of? If he was driving illegally (suspended license) no matter what car he was driving it would still be illegal. In this situation the object is disjoint from the action. There is nothing the car can show that has any relevance as to whether or not the person was driving illegally.

No, what I said was that IF the states action is punitive in nature, and IF it is applied before innocence or guilt is determined THEN a due process violation has occurred. I cannot explain it any clearer.

LMAO all i hear is moaning and somebody trying to make it easier for criminals and harder for cops

1.) easy the cop doesnt want the item used in breaking the law back in the suspects hands DONE LMAO or for SAFTEY. Its not the cops responsibility to cater to someone breaking the law.
2.) because YOU make up a premise for towing a car to be against due process YOU not the law YOU make it up but when that same weak inaccurate logic is applied elsewhere its fine lol
3.) wow what the hell are you talking about LOL Im talking about the reaming people left if that car isnt on their insurance its a no go
4.) wasnt saying it matters if its felony or not?????? I was saying its not a felony like your example LOL Its evidence if the cop wants it to be
5 then you imeddiately state after that "then there can be no argument for not allowing a different licensed driver to remove the vehicle from the roadway (i.e. a passenger that is present at the time of arrest)." so according to your own words anytime a care is towed under these conditions it must be punitive because according to you theres no toher reason to do such LMAO

I agree you are right you could not have been more clear and you are clearly wrong

but Im done playing semantics and talking circles with you this is my statements and it stands.

It doesnt have to be mandatory but the cop is totally just in towing the car when it is being driven illegally and that car is own by that person driving it illegally. And in towing the car there is no infringement of due process.

this is my statement prove it wrong

and of course, if you dont want your car towed dont break the law :shrug: why is this common sense so hard to accept

American · Dec 30, 2011

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

Risky Thicket said:
Yes, fascism. :lamo

Holding someone accountable is fascism, got it!

Swit · Dec 30, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
LMAO all i hear is moaning and somebody trying to make it easier for criminals and harder for cops

How exactly is allowing a passenger to drive the vehicle making it harder for cops? As I see it, it frees the cop/dispatcher from having to find a towing service, expedites removal of the vehicle from the roadway, and does not otherwise adversely effect a law abiding citizen (the passenger) by requiring him or her to somehow figure out how to get picked up from the side of the road.

Objective-J said:
1.) easy the cop doesnt want the item used in breaking the law back in the suspects hands DONE LMAO or for SAFTEY. Its not the cops responsibility to cater to someone breaking the law.

How is allowing the passenger of the vehicle to take possession of the car and move it somehow either catering to, or putting the car back into the hands of the suspect (who is presumably in the back of the squad car awaiting his trip to the pokey). Not to mention that by doing this he would also be denying the passenger from engaging in a completely legal activity without cause. After all the passenger has done nothing illegal here.

Objective-J said:
2.) because YOU make up a premise for towing a car to be against due process YOU not the law YOU make it up but when that same weak inaccurate logic is applied elsewhere its fine lol

Neither I nor the law made up the premise, someone else in this thread did and I merely responded to it. You even admitted to not having read the whole thread leading up to this very issue... you should really go do that. I didn't set up this situation.

Objective-J said:
3.) wow what the hell are you talking about LOL Im talking about the reaming people left if that car isnt on their insurance its a no go

First off in terms of automobile insurance, it is the car that gets insured, not the driver. The primary driver merely influences the cost of the insurance. Either that insurance allows for other drivers or it doesn't. Either way it doesn't matter, since the assumption was that the vehicle is legally operable by the passenger as the original context of the situation made no claim to the contrary. If the passenger cannot legally operate the car then who is arguing that should should be allowed to drive illegally? Certainly not I.

Objective-J said:
4.) wasnt saying it matters if its felony or not?????? I was saying its not a felony like your example LOL Its evidence if the cop wants it to be

Ummm, no a cop cannot just arbitrarily seize somebody's property on the claim that it is evidence because he wants it to be. As point of fact, even if there were a precedence for a car being used as evidence in this manner, the police officer would first have to get a judge to sign off on a subpoena for seizure of personal property which he would clearly not have available to him at the time of arrest. And to head off the ridiculous "then the gun cant be used as evidence" argument, the gun is not protected as personal property as it is not legally owned.

Objective-J said:
5 then you imeddiately state after that "then there can be no argument for not allowing a different licensed driver to remove the vehicle from the roadway (i.e. a passenger that is present at the time of arrest)." so according to your own words anytime a care is towed under these conditions it must be punitive because according to you theres no toher reason to do such LMAO

Hey, I'm all ears. I already admitted I can't think of any other reason, I've been asking you if you knew of one and you haven't provided one yet.

Objective-J said:
I agree you are right you could not have been more clear and you are clearly wrong

Gotcha... Your ok with applying punishment to people before determining whether a crime was committed. Mind-boggling.

Objective-J said:
but Im done playing semantics and talking circles with you this is my statements and it stands.

Ok, let's hear it.

Objective-J said:
It doesnt have to be mandatory but the cop is totally just in towing the car when it is being driven illegally and that car is own by that person driving it illegally. And in towing the car there is no infringement of due process.

Here... right here is the problem.... This Statement is 100% correct. But no one was ever arguing to the contrary. I would even argue that it doesn't even matter if the person owns it or not. The mere fact that you said its not a mandatory situation means that you do not understand the context of the original premise, it was predicated on the fact that it was mandatory.

Objective-J said:
this is my statement prove it wrong

and of course, if you dont want your car towed dont break the law :shrug: why is this common sense so hard to accept

Who hasn't accepted this?

AGENT J · Dec 30, 2011

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

Swit said:
How exactly is allowing a passenger to drive the vehicle making it harder for cops? As I see it, it frees the cop/dispatcher from having to find a towing service, expedites removal of the vehicle from the roadway, and does not otherwise adversely effect a law abiding citizen (the passenger) by requiring him or her to somehow figure out how to get picked up from the side of the road.

How is allowing the passenger of the vehicle to take possession of the car and move it somehow either catering to, or putting the car back into the hands of the suspect (who is presumably in the back of the squad car awaiting his trip to the pokey). Not to mention that by doing this he would also be denying the passenger from engaging in a completely legal activity without cause. After all the passenger has done nothing illegal here.

Neither I nor the law made up the premise, someone else in this thread did and I merely responded to it. You even admitted to not having read the whole thread leading up to this very issue... you should really go do that. I didn't set up this situation.

First off in terms of automobile insurance, it is the car that gets insured, not the driver. The primary driver merely influences the cost of the insurance. Either that insurance allows for other drivers or it doesn't. Either way it doesn't matter, since the assumption was that the vehicle is legally operable by the passenger as the original context of the situation made no claim to the contrary. If the passenger cannot legally operate the car then who is arguing that should should be allowed to drive illegally? Certainly not I.

Ummm, no a cop cannot just arbitrarily seize somebody's property on the claim that it is evidence because he wants it to be. As point of fact, even if there were a precedence for a car being used as evidence in this manner, the police officer would first have to get a judge to sign off on a subpoena for seizure of personal property which he would clearly not have available to him at the time of arrest. And to head off the ridiculous "then the gun cant be used as evidence" argument, the gun is not protected as personal property as it is not legally owned.

Hey, I'm all ears. I already admitted I can't think of any other reason, I've been asking you if you knew of one and you haven't provided one yet.

Gotcha... Your ok with applying punishment to people before determining whether a crime was committed. Mind-boggling.

Ok, let's hear it.

Here... right here is the problem.... This Statement is 100% correct. But no one was ever arguing to the contrary. I would even argue that it doesn't even matter if the person owns it or not. The mere fact that you said its not a mandatory situation means that you do not understand the context of the original premise, it was predicated on the fact that it was mandatory.

Who hasn't accepted this?

please stop LYING lol, its pathetic
"original premise" hahahahaha

here is my statement again

"It doesnt have to be mandatory but the cop is totally just in towing the car when it is being driven illegally and that car is own by that person driving it illegally. And in towing the car there is no infringement of due process."

YOU have been responding to it by quoting me and attacking it so again I ask you please prove it wrong, ill be waiting or are you just going to lie again and do another back pedal to save face?

Camlon · Dec 30, 2011

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

I am against collective punishment. The driver should be punished, but not the passengers he bring with him. So the car should be towed away only if there are no one to drive the car home. The passengers may have to go to something important and may not even know the driver do not have a license.

AGENT J · Dec 30, 2011

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

Camlon said:
I am against collective punishment. The driver should be punished, but not the passengers he bring with him. So the car should be towed away only if there are no one to drive the car home. The passengers may have to go to something important and may not even know the driver do not have a license.

**** happens, I might be at somebody's house who is a drug dealer and I dont know, house gets raided guess what? Im busy for a while explaining who I am and if im involved or not :shrug:

now I understand thats bad luck and unfortunate but its no reason to say they care should definitely NOT be towed, if the cop decided he doesnt want to, fine but if he does thats great to

me , if that car belongs to the person who was driving it illegally I would tow the car probably 98% of the time if I was a cop.

Be very little cases or reason not to IMO

Camlon · Dec 30, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
**** happens, I might be at somebody's house who is a drug dealer and I dont know, house gets raided guess what? Im busy for a while explaining who I am and if im involved or not :shrug:

now I understand thats bad luck and unfortunate but its no reason to say they care should definitely NOT be towed, if the cop decided he doesnt want to, fine but if he does thats great to

me , if that car belongs to the person who was driving it illegally I would tow the car probably 98% of the time if I was a cop.

Be very little cases or reason not to IMO

You can say **** happens, but I want a fair system that punish and rewards individuals and not collectives.

There is a reason I am a conservative and not a liberal.

AGENT J · Dec 30, 2011

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

Camlon said:
You can say **** happens, but I want a fair system that punish and rewards individuals and not collectives.

There is a reason I am a conservative and not a liberal.

By law standards the law in this case IS fair :shrug:

The bystanders are not punished they get to keep their cars and not go to jail or receive a fine

Swit · Dec 30, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
please stop LYING lol, its pathetic
"original premise" hahahahaha

here is my statement again

"It doesnt have to be mandatory but the cop is totally just in towing the car when it is being driven illegally and that car is own by that person driving it illegally. And in towing the car there is no infringement of due process."

YOU have been responding to it by quoting me and attacking it so again I ask you please prove it wrong, ill be waiting or are you just going to lie again and do another back pedal to save face?

I'm the person back peddling and "lying"?
Lets examine this...
This Your Initial Post to this thread:

Objective-J said:
jamesrage said:

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.
No
other

I say yes regardless if they can find a licensed driver to drive the car home.They are driving without license,they should have their car towed when pulled over for a traffic offense.Just letting some other guy tow the car will just mean the individual will go back to driving unlicensed.

Click to expand...

yes the car should be impounded if that car belongs to that driver, plain and simple

James make a case for mandatory towing, and you agree. How can you claim that the original premise was anything other than mandatory towing?

Later you even reinforce this position with:

Objective-J said:
If you don't have a license and its your car I can't think of a reason why you car shouldn't be towed.

Nothing that is of merit and a huge impact in reality anyway. Does anybody have anything?

And now you are trying to claim you weren't making a case for mandatory towing? Really?
or are you going to somehow try and explain how "yes regardless if they can find a licensed driver to drive the car home" somehow does not equate to mandatory towing?

AGENT J · Dec 30, 2011

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

Swit said:
I'm the person back peddling and "lying"?
Lets examine this...
This Your Initial Post to this thread:

James make a case for mandatory towing, and you agree. How can you claim that the original premise was anything other than mandatory towing?

Later you even reinforce this position with:

And now you are trying to claim you weren't making a case for mandatory towing? Really?
or are you going to somehow try and explain how "yes regardless if they can find a licensed driver to drive the car home" somehow does not equate to mandatory towing?

so where did I mention mandatory and why dont you quote my many many posts where I said it should be the cops decision and not mandatory hmmmmmm I wonder why LMAO

notice I also voted OTHER genius, whoops LOL

what a joke, you are pathetic, you attempts to save face will not work do you forget that EVERYTHING I wrote is here in black and white not just what you are dishonestly trying to misrepresent :lamo

roguenuke · Dec 30, 2011

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

Swit said:
To my knowledge the is no state in the union which requires a driver's license as qualification of automobile ownership.

You are definitely right here. In fact, I just got a new driver's permit yesterday (might actually finally get a driver's license from this one), yet I have been joint owner of our Mazda 5 since we got it last month.

Camlon · Dec 31, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
By law standards the law in this case IS fair :shrug:

The bystanders are not punished they get to keep their cars and not go to jail or receive a fine

Just because the law says so, does not make it fair. Do you think anti-speech laws are fair too? In fact most countries limit free speech and imprison people who disagree too much with mainstream thought. This does not only happen in developing countries, in Swedes they imprison people for calling homosexuality a sin.

The passengers are punished if the car is towed away. They may be on their way to something important. If they are allowed to drive, it is only fair that they are allowed to drive the car instead.

If you believe just fining them is not enough, then we can increase the fine or include prison time. But I believe we should try to avoid punishing innocents.

Swit · Dec 31, 2011

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

ok... just got home... where were we...

Objective-J said:
so where did I mention mandatory and why dont you quote my many many posts where I said it should be the cops decision and not mandatory hmmmmmm I wonder why LMAO

here:

Objective-J said:
...

im in favor of what ever the officers decides just like a speeding ticket and if there is priors it should be mandatory, cops dont need to help people breaking the law

...

And while prior offenses can sometimes be allowed to override constitutional protections/rights (i.e. Many states have legislated that violent felons cannot own guns or vote, and they have as yet held up to constitutional scrutiny) there is no offense which allows the state to override a citizen's right to due process.
AND...
I didn't quote your "many, many" posts which contained language like "cops decision and not mandatory" because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. See below.

Objective-J said:
notice I also voted OTHER genius, whoops LOL

I actually did notice that. I checked once you started to emphasize the "not mandatory" stuff (admittedly I was really hoping that you had voted for option 2). At the time I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was an intelligent choice which would allow you to adjust your position based on new evidence and information. In retrospect it appears I may have given you far too much credit. I can only make the assumption now that your choice to choose "other" is simply to allow you the ability to switch positions at will without ever having to actually defend them.

Objective-J said:
what a joke, you are pathetic, you attempts to save face will not work do you forget that EVERYTHING I wrote is here in black and white not just what you are dishonestly trying to misrepresent :lamo

How can I misrepresent you when I am directly quoting you? How can I be trying to "save face" when my position has never wavered? I'd also point out that each and every time you backed yourself into an untenable position you either neglected to address the point I addressed or resorted to personal attack. I can only assume these were attempts to ignore the point altogether for lack of having a coherent counter-point.

Since I have seen your posts in many other threads I will help you with your response... just cut and paste and follow the bold instructions. Feel free to change any use of the word "blah" to anything you want, or leave it alone, or delete it... it doesn't matter as it wouldn't change the overall message anyway.

blah... blah... blah... [insert personal attack here]. LOL :lamo
blah... blah... blah... [insert irrelevant/unrelated gotcha comment here]. hahahaha :doh
blah... blah... blah... [insert phrase utilizing the word deflection] blah... blah...[insert phrase utilizing the word illogical] blah... blah...[insert phrase utilizing the word(s) reality and/or fantasy] blah... blah...[insert phrase utilizing the word relevant] blah... blah... blah.
blah... blah... blah... I didn't address your [insert derogatory adjective] point because it was [insert derogatory adjective here], and because you are a/an [insert personal attack here] blah.. blah.. you ignore the fact that [insert red herring here]blah...blah while claiming [insert strawman argument here](feel free to add an emoticon and /or capitalized textspeak if you like)

Or... you can abandon the personal attacks and logical fallacies and actually address the counter claims to issues you yourself brought up. The choice is yours.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2011

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

Camlon said:
Just because the law says so, does not make it fair. Do you think anti-speech laws are fair too? In fact most countries limit free speech and imprison people who disagree too much with mainstream thought. This does not only happen in developing countries, in Swedes they imprison people for calling homosexuality a sin.

The passengers are punished if the car is towed away. They may be on their way to something important. If they are allowed to drive, it is only fair that they are allowed to drive the car instead.

If you believe just fining them is not enough, then we can increase the fine or include prison time. But I believe we should try to avoid punishing innocents.

the passenger are not punished in REALITY, they dont get fined the dont get arrested they dont lose their cars, they are not punished but I could argue if the car doesnt get towed the person breaking the law does get rewarded lol

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2011

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

Swit said:
ok... just got home... where were we...

here:

And while prior offenses can sometimes be allowed to override constitutional protections/rights (i.e. Many states have legislated that violent felons cannot own guns or vote, and they have as yet held up to constitutional scrutiny) there is no offense which allows the state to override a citizen's right to due process.
AND...
I didn't quote your "many, many" posts which contained language like "cops decision and not mandatory" because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. See below.

I actually did notice that. I checked once you started to emphasize the "not mandatory" stuff (admittedly I was really hoping that you had voted for option 2). At the time I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was an intelligent choice which would allow you to adjust your position based on new evidence and information. In retrospect it appears I may have given you far too much credit. I can only make the assumption now that your choice to choose "other" is simply to allow you the ability to switch positions at will without ever having to actually defend them.

How can I misrepresent you when I am directly quoting you? How can I be trying to "save face" when my position has never wavered? I'd also point out that each and every time you backed yourself into an untenable position you either neglected to address the point I addressed or resorted to personal attack. I can only assume these were attempts to ignore the point altogether for lack of having a coherent counter-point.

Since I have seen your posts in many other threads I will help you with your response... just cut and paste and follow the bold instructions. Feel free to change any use of the word "blah" to anything you want, or leave it alone, or delete it... it doesn't matter as it wouldn't change the overall message anyway.

blah... blah... blah... [insert personal attack here]. LOL :lamo
blah... blah... blah... [insert irrelevant/unrelated gotcha comment here]. hahahaha :doh
blah... blah... blah... [insert phrase utilizing the word deflection] blah... blah...[insert phrase utilizing the word illogical] blah... blah...[insert phrase utilizing the word(s) reality and/or fantasy] blah... blah...[insert phrase utilizing the word relevant] blah... blah... blah.
blah... blah... blah... I didn't address your [insert derogatory adjective] point because it was [insert derogatory adjective here], and because you are a/an [insert personal attack here] blah.. blah.. you ignore the fact that [insert red herring here]blah...blah while claiming [insert strawman argument here](feel free to add an emoticon and /or capitalized textspeak if you like)

Or... you can abandon the personal attacks and logical fallacies and actually address the counter claims to issues you yourself brought up. The choice is yours.

what on gods name are you talking about I havent attacked you You infact did lie and did back pedal and make stuff up LOL

I asked where I was in support of it being mandatory when I voted other and all you could mange to post was me saying id be in support of making it madatory IF THERE WERE PRIORS

hahahahahah but yet you still ignore where I said MULTIPLE TIMES i want it to be up to the cop and I support he decisions and not be mandatory?????????

could you be any more dishonest you are really looking more silly with each post

let me know when you are done trying to save face, done lying and trying to argue something that was never said.

Ill be waiting for you to prove MY statements wrong or give me proof that I said anything you are trying to misrepresent me saying LOL

This is hilarious

MaggieD · Dec 31, 2011

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

jamesrage said:
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.
No
other

I say yes regardless if they can find a licensed driver to drive the car home.They are driving without license,they should have their car towed when pulled over for a traffic offense.Just letting some other guy tow the car will just mean the individual will go back to driving unlicensed.

I agree. No license means no insurance unless they're borrowing someone's car. And, if they are, then the car's owner deserves the inconvenience and $$ penalty of loaning his car to an unlicensed driver. Unlicensed drivers are all over the place. Why?? Because the penalties for same aren't strict enough. Hit 'em where it hurts. Hard.

Camlon · Dec 31, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
the passenger are not punished in REALITY, they dont get fined the dont get arrested they dont lose their cars, they are not punished but I could argue if the car doesnt get towed the person breaking the law does get rewarded lol

They are punished. Under normal laws licensed drivers can drive any car as long as the owner permits it. If you tell them that they can not drive this car, and has to walk home, because another driver was driving wrong, then that is collective punishment.

And you are on a slippery slope if you start regarding the absence of punishment as a reward.

If this is about punishing the driver harder, then they are ways to punish the driver harder. We can increase the fines or give them prison times. If you are concerned about equality, and believe they should all pay the same, then the ones who keeps the car have to pay a higher fine.

Towing away the car when someone else can drive it is a collective punishment and expensive.

radcen · Dec 31, 2011

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

MaggieD said:
I agree. No license means no insurance unless they're borrowing someone's car. And, if they are, then the car's owner deserves the inconvenience and $$ penalty of loaning his car to an unlicensed driver. Unlicensed drivers are all over the place. Why?? Because the penalties for same aren't strict enough. Hit 'em where it hurts. Hard.

How about when the driver still has the physical license in his possession, but it's been suspended? The owners asks for, and verifies, that the driver "has a license", but has no way of knowing its current non-status. The owner did his reasonable due diligence.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2011

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

Camlon said:
They are punished. Under normal laws licensed drivers can drive any car as long as the owner permits it. If you tell them that they can not drive this car, and has to walk home, because another driver was driving wrong, then that is collective punishment.

And you are on a slippery slope if you start regarding the absence of punishment as a reward.

If this is about punishing the driver harder, then they are ways to punish the driver harder. We can increase the fines or give them prison times. If you are concerned about equality, and believe they should all pay the same, then the ones who keeps the car have to pay a higher fine.

Towing away the car when someone else can drive it is a collective punishment and expensive.

the car was used to break the law and if its not their car they have NO RIGHT to use it

I have no idea what you are talking about with the fines? I only want the person who broke the law fines nobody else

towing away a car that belongs to the person that broke the law is SINGULAR punishment, and expense is of no concern to me since that person broke the law

If Im at my neighbors house and he is a drug dealer but I dont know, the house gets raided while Im there should the cops just let me leave on my word and not question me of check my ID or anything, should they just let me go on my word if I tell them I was just about to leave for something important? LOL

THEY ARE NOT PUNISHED, they pay NO fine, they serve NO time, they get to keep THEIR OWN cars :shrug:

if they are late to an appointment big whoop, the cop cant cater to them and skip out on the law not to mention they are going to be late anyway because this its not going to be a quick process even if he does let someone drive away.

In REALITY they are not "punished" unless you consider every trivial thing punishment.

Also save the "dramatics" no one is MAKING them WALK home lol
they can call for rides, call a cab or as last resort get a ride from the officer when he is done handling the crime in progress

Camlon · Dec 31, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
the car was used to break the law and if its not their car they have NO RIGHT to use it

Yes, they do. The car didn't do the offence, the individual did. Just because one individual is not allowed to use a car, does not mean everyone else should not be able to use the car.

But lets take your arguments further. Lets say that people who do crimes will get their house seized. By your argument the family did not get punished. they pay NO fine, they serve NO time, and they will get to keep THEIR OWN hosue if they have any. That argumentation makes no sense.

Im at my neighbors house and he is a drug dealer but I dont know, the house gets raided while Im there should the cops just let me leave on my word and not question me of check my ID or anything, should they just let me go on my word if I tell them I was just about to leave for something important? LOL

No, I say we should limit punishing third parties, not eliminate it. In this case you are not even a third party, you are a suspect.

My problem is with you is that you want a system that costs more, is unnecessary and punish third parties in a larger degree.

they can call for rides, call a cab or as last resort get a ride from the officer when he is done handling the crime in progress

Not everyone lives in the big cities. Getting a cab outside the cities can take time. They may not even have a phone, reception or money, and the police may have other things to do. We can not have a legal system that will only work if the police is nice.

Your arguments tend to go this way. No, I am not punishing anyone else that the individual, but if the person has to walk home, then screw him. Just because they don't get a fine or a sentence does not mean they do not get punished.

Lethargic Aptitude · Dec 31, 2011

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

Objective-J said:
the car was used to break the law and if its not their car they have NO RIGHT to use it

I have no idea what you are talking about with the fines? I only want the person who broke the law fines nobody else

towing away a car that belongs to the person that broke the law is SINGULAR punishment, and expense is of no concern to me since that person broke the law

If Im at my neighbors house and he is a drug dealer but I dont know, the house gets raided while Im there should the cops just let me leave on my word and not question me of check my ID or anything, should they just let me go on my word if I tell them I was just about to leave for something important? LOL

THEY ARE NOT PUNISHED, they pay NO fine, they serve NO time, they get to keep THEIR OWN cars :shrug:

if they are late to an appointment big whoop, the cop cant cater to them and skip out on the law not to mention they are going to be late anyway because this its not going to be a quick process even if he does let someone drive away.

In REALITY they are not "punished" unless you consider every trivial thing punishment.

Also save the "dramatics" no one is MAKING them WALK home lol
they can call for rides, call a cab or as last resort get a ride from the officer when he is done handling the crime in progress

Cops do not give people rides without handcuffs, I was told this before by a cop after a wreck.

AGENT J · Dec 31, 2011

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

Camlon said:
Yes, they do. The car didn't do the offence, the individual did. Just because one individual is not allowed to use a car, does not mean everyone else should not be able to use the car.

no matter how you twist it, in ADULT FREE REALITY they are not punished, NOTHING happens to them, NOTHING lol

Camlon said:
But lets take your arguments further. Lets say that people who do crimes will get their house seized. By your argument the family did not get punished. they pay NO fine, they serve NO time, and they will get to keep THEIR OWN hosue if they have any. That argumentation makes no sense.

guess what it makes PERFECT sense because this is already how the law works. If I embezzle money and I have a house in only MY name and they take it from me thats exactly what happens they take MY house because I did the crime they dont care who stays there :shrug: lol

Camlon said:
No, I say we should limit punishing third parties, not eliminate it. In this case you are not even a third party, you are a suspect.

why am I a suspect?!?!?!? in this case and not the others? maybe everyone in the car KNEW he was driving it illegally? see your inconsistency is showing itself mighty fast.

what if Im a perfectly good neighbor and I just stopped by to return a tool I bothered right before I have to catch a plane for a big job interview out of town? how come you dont feel im being "punished" in this case LOL

Camlon said:
My problem is with you is that you want a system that costs more, is unnecessary and punish third parties in a larger degree.

your problem is YOU because I dont want a system that cost more LOL thats something you simp[ly made up or are assuming and I dont want third parties punished either nor do I feel they are being punished in this case because they are grown adults not whiny babies.

Camlon said:
Not everyone lives in the big cities. Getting a cab outside the cities can take time. They may not even have a phone, reception or money, and the police may have other things to do. We can not have a legal system that will only work if the police is nice.

who said everyone lives in a big city? please stay on topic and don't use meaningless examples I said cab, call a friend or have the cop do it after. stop being dramatic like some serial killer movie LOL they were stranded with no phone, no reception, the cop was to busy even to give them a ride where there is reception or a phone and the cop wouldnt even radio a call in from them then what?! DUN DUN DUN!!!!! lol

the legal system works just fine till babies cry about it, no im not calling YOU a baby Im calling the people in the car a babies if they are crying about it

what if a meteoroid hit them while they were waiting? please stick to reality we cant cover EVERYTHING

Camlon said:
Your arguments tend to go this way. No, I am not punishing anyone else that the individual, but if the person has to walk home, then screw him. Just because they don't get a fine or a sentence does not mean they do not get punished.

there you go with the "walking home" drama again

they are not punished, they dont lose anything LIFE is LIFE

where does your argument of everyone is a victium and is getting punished end?

what if dad is the only one that brings home money in the family, they lock him up for rape and now the wife and kids lose the house? guess we should just not punish dad for rape because according to you OTHERS will be punished, please stop this is an adult world we live in.

You if you feel those passengers are being punished you know whos fault it is? THE ILLEGAL DRIVER not the cop LMAO

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"

Trump Grump Whisperer

"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"

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

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

Political Parties = Corruption

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