Harris Poll Reflects and Reinforces Incoherent Thinking About 'Public Health'

Based on a recent survey, Harris Interactive reports that "many Americans [are] ambivalent over laws aimed at healthy living." That's a kind way of putting it. The results actually suggest that Americans' views on the subject are incoherent. 

Eighty-one percent of the respondents "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed that "people should take personal responsibility for their own actions and be free to make their own decisions, even if they suffer as a result." At the same time, 86 percent supported "requiring drivers and passengers in the front seats to wear seat belts," 82 percent supported "requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets," 80 percent supported "banning smoking in restaurants and other enclosed public places," 78 percent supported "requiring restaurants to show nutritional information on menus," 73 percent supported "requiring bicyclists to wear helmets," 68 percent supported "regulations to reduce salt in packaged foods," and 62 percent supported "banning the use of trans fats in restaurants." While some of these policies, such as government-imposed smoking bans and mandatory calorie counts, could be described as "consumer protection" measures, they are all essentially paternalistic, aimed at preventing adults from accepting risks the government deems unacceptable.

The only such policy opposed by most respondents was "putting a new tax on soft drinks with high sugar content," which only 38 percent supported. Majorities (65 percent and 76 percent, respectively) also opposed "employers not hiring people who smoke because it could cost more to insure them" and "employers not hiring people who are obese because it could cost more to insure them." Assuming these folks would support banning those policies, we do start to see a thread of consistency: People like the government to impose their tastes, values, and preferences on recalcitrant businesses.

Two of the policies mentioned in the survey, "banning texting while driving" (favored by 91 percent of respondents) and "banning the overall use of cell phones while driving" (70 percent), are aimed at protecting other people. The remaining two are aimed at protecting minors: "requiring the vaccination of young children against mumps, measles, whooping cough, TB, polio and other diseases" (favored by 86 percent) and "requiring the vaccination of children ages 11-12 against HPV, the virus that can cause cervical cancer" (61 percent). While these four policies are not necessarily justified, the rationales for them are fundamentally different from the rationales for making people wear motorcycle helments or stopping them from buying food containing trans fats.

Harris Interactive blurs these important distinctions, asking people whether "laws, policies and programs like those listed in the previous question are sometimes necessary to prevent us from being hurt by the actions of other people who cause accidents or do other dangerous things" (81 percent said yes) and whether "laws, policies and programs like those listed in the previous question are turning us into a 'nanny state' where we rely too much on the government to protect us from danger" (61 percent thought so). By lumping together private action with government action, policies aimed at protecting children with policies aimed at protecting adults, and policies aimed at protecting people from each other with policies aimed at protecting people from their own risky decisions, the pollsters promote the incoherence on which they remark.

For more on seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws (in particular, why resistance to the latter has been much more successful than resistance to the former), see my 2005 Reason feature "Freedom Riders." For more on public health paternalism, see my 2007 essay "An Epidemic of Meddling."

[Thanks to Vic McDonald for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    "banning smoking in restaurants and other enclosed public places,"

    How about a poll addressing this incoherence?

  • Almanian||

    Yeah, you know, PUBLIC places - like your front yard, your car when you're downtown, your private club....PUBLIC places...

  • California||

    Well said.

  • ||

    the term of law/art is "places of public accomodation"

    fwiw, i totally disagree with bans in bars, restaurants, etc. but support bans in GOVERNMENT buildings such as post office, courts etc.

    the distinction is obvious

    prior to the govt. imposed ban where i live, there was at least one bar that CHOSE to be smoke free, which is how the business model should work.

    a private business can ban smoking, but the govt. shouldn't be allowed to force it to ban smoking

  • Almanian||

    Harris Poll

    This ALWAYS makes me think of WRIF in Detroit - Drew and Mike in the morning doing a "Harris Poll", "...where we call people named 'Harris' to ask them questions..."

    So awesome.

  • Robert||

    Do they do a Gallop Poll among people on horses? How about a "kneel, son" survey?

    Good think there's nothing that sounds like Quinnipiac.

  • H man||

    What's this about health. I just want the government to stop spending so much money on things other than me and what I want.

  • P B||

    Our societal incoherence also applies to gov't spending, law-making & opinions on our congress-critters.

  • Rich||

    Eighty-one percent of the respondents "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed that "people should take personal responsibility for their own actions and be free to make their own decisions, even if they suffer as a result."

    That's probably because they believe "taking personal responsibility" still entitles them to public assistance.

  • Robert||

    No, I think it's because when figuring responsibility for actions and possible suffering as a result, they take laws into account. So for instance, they may think people should suffer getting a ticket for not wearing a safety belt, being responsible for violation of the law in question. I'm not joking, this is how people think, so if you want to find out otherwise, the question has to be specific enough to rule out that sort of responsibility and consequence.

  • Robert||

    Seriously, this is a topic on which radical libertarians get confused because they project their own understanding of "responsibility" on others, and so can't figure how people can support wars on drugs while simultaneously supporting personal responsibility. Many people vehemently support both, saying violators need to be held responsible for their violations of the laws by being prosecuted for them. And/or they may characterize nonmedical "drug" use as irresponsible per se, and that therefore we need to have a culture of responsibility by forbidding it.

  • Almanian||

    Also, Ima say it one more time - I NEVER ride my motorcycle without a full face helmet. It just freaks me out in Ohio - almost 100% ride without.

    I'd be dead if I didn't wear a helmet - took a ride down I-75 on my face in Toledo when a truck took me out. Only broke my kneecap and a thumb - helmet was worn down bigtime on the chin area. That would have been my head, so...I survived. (also had boots, jacket, gloves, pants, etc.

    So - if you ride, for FUCK's sake wear a helmet, jacket, boots and gloves at the least. Although I'll never support a law mandating that you do.

    Unless you're a dick, in which case I hope you don't wear a helmet, get hit by the same truck that got me, and die.

  • ||

    No matter how good the wind in your hair feels, its not worth the feeling of the road on your face.

    Also, I see people all the time in FL riding in shorts and flip-flops. I guess "dress for the wreck" doesn't get taught anymore.

  • T||

    I pulled enough gravel out of my skin from bicycle wrecks when I was a kid. Once you graduate to a motor, the stakes become a lot higher.

  • ||

    No helmet, fuckin' flip flops, a tank top, and baggy cargo shorts with strings hanging off of them...riding with only one hand and talking on the cell phone with the other...on a major Houston freeway.

    That shit is thinning the herd right there, we don't need laws to stop that.

  • R||

    No matter how good the wind in your hair feels

    People actually like that feeling? For some reason it annoys the crap out of me. If I were a motorcycle rider, I'd wear a full-faced helmet just because of that. Well, and also because I don't want bug in my face.

  • ||

    Why are you anti-potential organ donors?

  • ||

    Agreed. I'm getting up towards the age when organs start wearing out, so please don't wear helmets or safety gear.

    I might need to take a long term loan of your heart or liver some day. :P

  • ...---...||

    Pretty disgusting that you wish death on somebody because they don't do what you want them to.

  • Tonio||

    Or maybe you just lack a sense of humor.

  • ||

    I believe the lack of humor in his case is terminal.

    Dibs on his kidneys.

  • ||

    Max has dibs on his brain, in case anyone was considering it for a family pet.

  • skr||

    I'm signing up for a part of the liver.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Same here in NH, where there is no helmet law. I always see these 'Easy Riders' and visualize them being ground into mincemeat by the pavement.

  • Shut the fuck up||

    "So - if you ride, for FUCK's sake wear a helmet, jacket, boots and gloves at the least."

    In Florida? In the SUMMER? BWAHAHAAHAHHAHAAH

    No.

    And before I leave you to your inevitable attempts to insult and belittle me for not agreeing with you, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO LECTURE ME ABOUT RISK MANAGEMENT?

    I do something slightly more dangerous than it could be.

    That's my choice. MINE. PERIOD. Stop pretending I should give a shit about your opinion.

  • Tonio||

    I see it as more imploring than lecturing. Sensitive much?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What's the difference, Tonio? The end result is the same... some self-imposed Safety Expert wagging their fingers at you for not towing the lion.

  • ||

    Why post then?

  • ||

    I ride horses - a sport that has a very high injury rate - and always wear a helmet.

    But I do sympathize with your point about the heat. One time I deliberately went to a lesson without a helmet; I told my instructor I preferred my brains scrambled to fried.

    I now have a helmet with vents to allow cooling. It might be worth investigating whether there is similar MC gear.

  • ||

    There is. They have some really nice vented jackets and helmets that will still be hot as balls in FL in the summer, but not fatally so.

  • Jeffrey||

    Yeah, except you obviously give a shit about his opinion. So go fuck yourself with a pineapple.

  • Almanian||

    Waaaah! Waaah!

    Your choice, dumbass. And I'm not a "self-appointed expert" - look up the research, and ask yourself why people who race motorcycles for a living crash, and crash, and crash...and walk away.

    BTW - It was 98 degrees and 98% humidity the day I got taken out. Dress for the crash, not the weather. Be safe.

  • ...---...||

    Wearing a helmet and 5 point harness in your car has been proven to reduce injuries during a crash.

    Get back to me when you buy them and use them in your car daily.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Reduce injuries by how much? Because that's really the question here. It is logical to wear a helmet and other protective clothing when you ride a motorcycle because your chance of serious injury is greatly reduced. However, wearing a helmet and harness when driving an automobile? Not so much.

  • Almanian||

    What is this, Simple Fuck day?

    What Mulatto said. Jesus.

  • Matrix||

    Maybe we should make it a law that Congresscritters must ride motorcycles any time they are on the road and are not allowed to wear helmets.

  • ||

  • ||

    For most Congresscritters, hitting their head on the pavement would not seriously impair their cognitive abilities.

  • SFC B||

    I misjudged an off-ramp on a highway interchange in PA. Wound up going head first over my handgrips. The visor and chin of my helmet was DESTROYED. Rocks and bits of glass embedded in the plastic. Deep gouges down the length of the face. It probably wouldn't have killed me, but I'd still probably be having my face put back together. I will never, ever ride without a full helmet, and think people who go helmetless are drooling morons who would be better off just swallowing the barrel of a gun if they wanted to kill themselves. However they should be free to do so.

  • Joe M||

    I am shocked that most people are unable to integrate their thoughts into a coherent, internally consistent whole.

    What those results boil down to is:
    1) "I should be able to do whatever I want, because I know best."
    2) "Others should do what I think is best, because again, I know best."

  • ||

    See, its agreeing with part one but disagreeing with part two that makes libertarians lonely racist child-hating puppy murderers.

  • ||

    That's "lonely racist child-hating puppy-murdering men", Brett.

  • ||

    On behalf of me and the 8, 6, 4, 3 other female libertarians on this planet, fuck you RC!

  • ||

    Lucy, invisible furry hand, and who else?

  • Joe M||

    Jennifer, Konfounded Kristen.... ummmm

  • ||

    Oh yeah. I should have remembered Kristen. Jennifer doesn't come around much in the comments anymore.

  • ||

    That Syrian lesbian?

  • ||

    Bronwyn, Devil's Advocate, Dagny T, Fr Bunny (ret)...I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple.

  • ||

    Yours truly. I get called "dude" a lot around here, but I'm cool with it.

  • skr||

    There are some libertarian women out there, most people just think they are non-empathetic sociopaths like my lady's co-workers think of her apparently.

  • ||

    fuck you RC

    Yes, yes, do go on. But first, what are you wearing?

  • ||

    **cough**cough**

  • Jeffersonian||

    Scratch that one off the libertarian list.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Puppy murdering! I knew I forgot to do something this morning.

  • Ex nihilo||

    ^^^This^^^

  • Restoras||

    Team Blue/Team Red

  • ||

    Team BE RULED.

  • Joe M||

    That's MEAT BE RULED.

  • ||

    From the article...

    ...policies that aim to protect public health and safety...

    Exactly one of the fourteen questions is actually about public health. Maybe they meant "the public's health" and just don't know better.

    Nonetheless, a better phrasing that gets to the gist of the questions here would be...

    ...policies that aim to protect other people's health and safety...
  • rts||

    This is why socialized medicine is a particular evil: once other people are paying for your irresponsibility, then people feel entitled to dictate to others about their choices.

    Having these sorts of discussions with fellow Canadians, it always comes down to "if you get in an accident that costs the government money, therefore the government has a legitimate interest in forcing you to wear seat belts". *sigh*

  • ||

    Had that conversation many, many times. I've given up asking why I should have to pay for their medical problems and vice-versa.

    (OTOH, I am fairly sure that private insurers in the USA are prohibited from telling people that they are uninisured for injuries incurred while failing to use protective gear.)

  • T||

    There are, however, certain high-risk activities that standard life-insurance and medical policies specifically list as exclusions. The one that immediately comes to mind is competitive motor sports. I believe my life insurance specifically excludes coverage for that, though it's been a while since I read the policy.

  • Tonio||

    Also, injuries incurred when flying/riding in experimental aircraft...

  • Tonio||

    Oops, that's life ins, not medical.

  • John Denver||

    Bummer

  • ||

    "once other people are paying for your irresponsibility, then people feel entitled to dictate to others about their choices."

    I think you confused 'cause and effect' with 'means to an end' there.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Maybe it's the poll question that is incoherent? I wonder what the response would be to: "Who should pay for a smoker's health care? You or the smoker?" Many people of all ideological stripes don't like free-riding free-loaders but need the poll question to rub that in their face instead of making it sound like some employer, insurance company or Santa Claus in government is going to pay.

  • ||

    "Who should pay for a smoker's health care? You or the smoker?"

    What is interesting about this question is it assumes a smoker who dies from smoking related disease is more of a financial burden than someone who doesn’t. Last time I looked, a smoker who died from lung cancer died at an average age somewhere in the late 50's. Compared to someone who made it to the average life expectancy the smokers lifetime medical cost were considerably less.

  • T||

    The results actually suggest that Americans' views on the subject are incoherent.

    I think I can slap this summation on any poll ever taken of the American public, no matter the subject. Hell, Harris ought to stick that on the bottom as a standard disclaimer.

  • Joe M||

    Also, fuck you Frank!

  • ||

    I live in a state where assholes tell people they cannot smoke in their own apartments because it can end up in their neighbor's apartment.
    A state where there is a sign on every car window saying the car causes cancer.
    A state where a sardine has a right to water but the public doesn't.
    A state where, for the public health, people cannot smoke or play frisbee on the beach in places.
    A state where a happy meal is criminal but whacking off on a city sidewalk is just fine.
    A state where burning wood in your fireplace some days will get you a fine.

    I live in hell.

  • ||

    So why do you live there? Because of your job? Can't you get a transfer?

  • ||

    I moved here so I could be close to my kids, man. No other reason in the world could have gotten me here (and that reason alone couldn't have kept me away).

  • ||

    Because he rents out Texas.

  • ||

    i chose WA over CA for a # of reasons, but the fact that we are FAR FAR FAR more libertarian (and we have no income tax) were my two primary reasons.

    no income tax, shall issue right to carry, open carry w/no permit, and much greater restrictions on police search and seizure in WA state

    i love california (because i surf) but fuck them!

  • ||

    The two big down sides to WA are that the police have no accountability when they physically assault or kill people, and the weather sucks ass.

  • ||

    As if their police aren't bad enough for their own people, they're exporting the shitheads here so they can send armed officers to knock on reporters' doors after midnight.

  • ||

    In case any of you missed it.

    FTA: "I'm clearly in the wrong and I'm falling on my sword because I put Doug in an awkward position and I shouldn't have done it," he said.

    Yeah, an apology doesn't count as "falling on your sword" when you send an armed officer to a reporters house at 12:30 am and demand changes to a story.

  • ||

    lol. they have plenty of accountability. there are police officers who have been convicted of assault, etc

    i agree that when it comes to police homicide, there is a "good faith" legislative double standard

    but that only applies to homicide fwiw. for police assaults, and everything short of - it does not

    just today a police officer was acquitted btw after being charged and tried for assault IV

    prosecutor did what he could

  • ||

    note also that while there is a legislative double standard that favors police in re homicide, there is also use of force law that FAVORS noncops (e.g. "civilians") when using deadly force that is explicit in the law of justifiable homicide

    but i agree that ON BALANCE in MY STATE, police homicide does have a double standard that favors police as written into the law , although not as one sided as it appears when you ALSO consider the looser standard for deadly force in general (under the RCW) for non-cops.

    cite available upon request

  • ||

    cite available upon request

    [citation please]

  • ||

    And until this kind of shit ends...
    and this kind of shit ends, I'll have a hard time believing cops are holding themselves accountable. You can blame it on the legislature all you want, but it's odd, very odd, that the police departments in WA stonewall transparency at every turn.

  • Tonio||

    Lima Oscar Lima.

  • skr||

    The weather is quite nice though.

  • The Ghost of Leonardo DaVinci||

    I live in a state where assholes tell people they cannot smoke in their own apartments because it can end up in their neighbor's apartment.

    It's true. Do you have any idea how many molecules I exhaled, you take in with every breath?

  • ||

    Do you have any idea how many molecules I exhaled, you take in with every breath?

    No. And neither do the shitheads in Sacramento.

  • T||

    Probably none. It's a big atmosphere, Leo.

  • ||

    Four?

  • ||

    The calculation is fairly simple, if you assume that the atmosphere eventually diffuses all molecules equally:

    Assume an average exhalation of 1 liter = 6x10^23 / 22 molecules = ~2.7x10^22 molecules.

    Disperse 2.7x10^22 molecules through the volume of the lower atmosphere (~5x10^9 cubic km or ~5x10^21 liters)

    Which gives a figure pretty close to Marshall Gill's answer.

  • hamilton||

    Do you know who else breathed those same air molecules, once?

  • Teenage Girl||

    Eewww!!

  • Romulus Augustus||

    I know, I rode in his elevator once and the thought struck me after I exited. [Uncontrollable desires to fling my right arm out in front of me.]

  • Restoras||

    I was just in SF for a couple of days - it was so nice relative to where I live that I have been considering moving there. I'm not sure I could stand the insanity of the politics and the rapidly looming default of the state.

  • ||

    If you've got to do it, go to Pleasanton. My company is HQ'd there, and it's pretty nice. Far enough away that property values are realistic and the politics aren't insane, but close enough you can get in in about 30 minutes on the train or 20 by car.

    Oh, and it's on the good side of the fault line.

  • fish||

    Pleasanton? Reasonable property values?

    Shit Sloop....I work near there and Pleasanton is outrageously expensive. Too rich for my blood!

  • ||

    Maybe compared to parts of Oakland and/or Richmond. But I thought we were talking about civilized places.

  • A Serious Man||

    Orange and San Diego counties are still tolerable, at least on a local level. Can't really do anything about what the asshats in Sacramento do.

  • ||

    I have 600 acres of timberland in Catahoula parish. I will sell you a couple and you can do whatever the hell you want and no one will ever even know, much less complain. Fuck California.

  • Max||

    I support a tax on those with shitty breath from having their heads up their asses. You libertoids should pay your fair share.

  • ||

    If that was directed at Tony, it was wholly inappropriate.

  • fish||

    You get shitty breath from your incessant performance of fellatio on crony capitalists like Soros and Buffett and greasy Chicago pols like Obama. Try again court jester!

  • ...---...||

    I don't care what the rest of you think about helmet laws because I don't have to.

    I do wonder though, what it is about wearing/not wearing a helmet that makes everyone an expert on head injuries and safety, and willing to share their expertise.

    I work out daily. I eat very well, and try to take excellent care of myself.

    I suppose I could do the same thing the helmet nannies do by pontificating to others about my fitness and their perceived lack of fitness, but I find something grossly disrespectful about doing so.

  • ||

    Probably because of the 30 or so motorcyclists I know, I can think of 3 off the top of my head who've been runover by a car. The problem with motorcycles is no matter how good a rider you are, there's always some little old lady standing over you saying "I just didn't see him." And you're always at a significant weight disadvantage which means that conservation of momentum will ensure that you will decelerate or accelerate much more quickly in an auto/moto wreck than an auto/auto wreck.

  • ||

    Oh, but if you want to not wear a helmet, I don't think anyone should make you. Its your inalienable right to make choices I find on face dangerous as long as its your life.

  • ...---...||

    No disrespect, but you didn't answer the question.

    I am certain I'm more fit than you.

    I've seen people have heart attacks, diabetes, you name it.

    At no point did that galvanize me to lecture anyone on changing their ways.

  • ...---...||

    Here's my point.

    Yuu saw it upthread, people who are normally very personal rights get bent out of shape by people not wearing a helmet, to the point of wishing bodily harm on them.

    That is almost unique to the helmet discussion, despite all the arguments being applicable to many other facets of life.

    I don't hear fat people being openly lectured about eating steaks, or pale people being openly lectured about going outside without a hat.

    For some reason, the helmet discussion prompts people to intrude in ways they would normally never do.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    I don't hear fat people being openly lectured about eating steaks, or pale people being openly lectured about going outside without a hat.

    You haven't met some of my wife's friends then.

  • ...---...||

    I'd be just as critical of them, and my point stands.

  • WanT||

    Eh, I would assume it's due to the gruesome, more traumatizing nature of the consequences of not wearing a helmet. Humans instinctively react to blood and violence in a different way then, say, slow death from skin cancer.

    It doesn't bend me out of shape.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    For some reason, the helmet discussion prompts people to intrude in ways they would normally never do.

    Probably because the effects of steak or salt or inactivity or whatever play out over decades with complex interactions with other factors and no particular steak is the problem, while face-planting into the side of a car that turned in front of you is a pretty discrete and identifiable bit of damage that could have been mitigated.

  • The Mad Titan||

    while face-planting into the side of a car that turned in front of you is a pretty discrete and identifiable bit of damage that could have been mitigated.

    Nitpicking, a helmet won't do much in that case.

    They are most effective at preventing low speed head into pavement injuries.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Actually, I am alive because a helmet did do much in that case.

  • The Mad Titan||

    Actually, I am alive because a helmet did do much in that case.

    Two nitpicks

    1) you have no way of knowing that with the certainty you're displaying
    2) anecdote=/= data

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    1) I have a picture of the helmet around here somewhere. From the edge of the SHOEI logo, across the top left of the visor, and down close to where an earhole would be is gashed-in fiberglass, with paint transfer from the car. While I can't be 100% certain, I'm going to go with the opinions of the EMTs and doctors who have seen the results of similar impacts without helmets. Even if the helmet didn't save my life, it saved me from massive head trauma which, imo, still counts as doing much.

    2) I never claimed it was data. It is, however, a contradiction of your categorical statement that a helmet wouldn't do much in the situation I described. So, while it's not enough to constitute data, it's plenty to refute your FOS statement.

  • The Mad Titan||

    1) "I have..." nothing that definitively demonstrates that your helmet had the effect you claimed. Nothing in your post changes that.

    You're not correct here. You cannot definitively know. Stop trying to claim otherwise. You're PROBABLY right. But that wasn't your claim, nor what I was nitpicking.

    2)"I never claimed it was data."

    I never claimed you did.

    "It is, however, a contradiction"

    but there you are using it as such.

    "your categorical statement"

    I made no categorical statement, and nothing you've said refutes me in any way.

  • The Mad Titan||

    "it's plenty to refute your FOS statement."

    No, it isn't.

  • The Mad Titan||

    I'm going to go with the opinions of the EMTs

    Who have no way of knowing that either.

  • The Mad Titan||

    Face it, you made claims you cannot possibly know to be true and are upset because I didn't take them at face value.

    The rest is you bloviating.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah, it is. The helmet got bashed in. My head didn't. In what scenario is my helmet taking the brunt of the impact rather than my skull and brain taking the impact "no do[ing] much"?

    I made no categorical statement...
    Categorical (adj.): Unambiguously explicit and direct: "a categorical assurance".
    Synonyms:
    flat - positive - peremptory - unqualified

    You said "a helmet won't do much in that case." Not "probably won't do much." Not "might not do much." "Won't do much." You can go all Humpty Dumpty, but words mean what words mean.

  • The Mad Titan||

    Yeah, it is. The helmet got bashed in. My head didn't.

    Which proves nothing, other than the helmet got bashed.

    You said "a helmet won't do much in that case."

    Which, by your listed definition, isn't categorical. Define "much"? Right, that's why you're wrong.

    You can go all Humpty Dumpty, but words mean what words mean.

    And that's also why you're wrong, won't do much is in no way categorical, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and claim it is.

    Speaking of which, that brings us to the original point, you made claims you cannot possibly know to be true and are upset because I didn't take them at face value.

    The rest is you bloviating.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Define "much"?
    It prevented the damage my skull and brain would have sustained from hitting a car door/roofline unprotected. Now, maybe you think a human skull hitting the car door/roofline of a car wouldn't sustain much damage despite the fact that the helmet encasing said skull did, but there's nothing I can do to help you with that.

    And, really, it doesn't matter how "much" is defined if walking away from a totaled bike carrying a bashed-in helmet and without so much as a headache doesn't qualify.

    I'm sorry I rained on your Cliff Claven-like display of knowledge but I'll be sure not to run the risk of that in the future.

  • The Mad Titan||

    Define "much"?
    It prevented the damage...

    Uh, no guy, define it in a way that makes my statement categorical. Can you read?

    And you can't define it that way. Which is why you're wrong.

    And, really, it doesn't matter how "much" is defined if walking away from a totaled bike carrying a bashed-in helmet and without so much as a headache doesn't qualify.

    It doesn't, I've been 8 feet away while the exact thing you claimed occurred to someone without a helmet. He was fine.

    I'm sorry I rained on your ...

    Save it, you made claims you cannot possibly know to be true and are upset because I didn't take them at face value.

    The rest is you bloviating.

    I'll be sure not to run the risk of that in the future.

    Probably for the best for you, I'll just take you apart again.

  • MNG||

    I can't honestly believe NEM has spent the last hour and a half trying to convince the world that he knows how a future that never occurred would look.

  • ...---...||

    ""Won't do much." "

    So, it's not possible that it didn't do much, but did just enough?

    Sorry, there's nothing categorical about the sentence "won't do much". There just isn't.

  • MNG||

    In most cases, your head is much harder than any helmet. Using a destroyed helmet as evidence isn't very convincing, since they're designed to disperse forces by many methods, including coming apart.

  • ||

    Great. Got any fitness tips? I find I'm stuck at 3 running days a week and just can't seem to get myself on the workout everyday express. And I cheat on the no processed carbs all the time.

  • ...---...||

    "Got any fitness tips?"

    I take one day off and do what ever I want and eat whatever I want.

    It's not a set day, it's just the day I've finally had enough and decide to cheat. You know what I'm talking about. One a week.

    I was a college athlete, so exercise every day is part of my life. I wish there were some cheap way to get more fit, but if it were easy everyone would do it.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    So commenting about wearing a helmet in an article about people's perspectives on helmet laws is "grossly disrespectful?"

  • ...---...||

    "So commenting about wearing a helmet in an article"

    Who narrowed it down to "an article"?

    I didn't.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Well, you're violating Grice's Maxim of Relevance then.

    Nevertheless, I agree with you that it is disrespectful to sanctimoniously opine when the subject is not germane to the current discussion.

  • ...---...||

    "Well, you're violating Grice's Maxim of Relevance then."

    Nope.

    I'm discussing the debate.

    The article is about the debate.

  • ...---...||

    And by the way, it wasn't germane upthread.

    This article is about logical disconnects in public thinking.

    Sharing anecdotes about helmetless riders, and wishing harm on them, is in no way related to the article, which is about logical disconnects in thinking.

    It's an obvious distinction, one I'm surprised you've missed.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    To be fair, Almanian only wished them harm if they're dicks. Dicks getting harmed is something we can all get on board for, right?

  • ...---...||

    "Almanian only wished them harm if they're dicks."

    That's not being fair, it's being an apologist.

    And the others made no such distinction.

  • ||

    The last fatal accident I saw was a motorcycle run over by a pickup truck on I49. The truck changed lanes on top of the bike. The bike was broken in two. There were arms and legs and intestines strung out in the median, but the cherry on top was the long red swath through the grass where the helmet had rolled. The head was still in it, so thank god the helmet wasnt broken. it held up and protected the guys head.

  • SFC B||

    Because wearing a helmet makes such a blindingly obvious difference in the comfort and safety of riding that I am flabbergasted anyone would opt not to. Every state I've lived in since getting my first MC has been helmetless (NH, AZ, and WI). If you want to go without one, fine, but I'm going to think you're a fucking idiot who might as well tell me it's perfectly fine to drink anti-freeze.

  • ...---...||

    Because wearing a helmet makes such a blindingly obvious difference in the comfort

    Not where I live.

    And you totally ducked the point. No one is arguing helmets aren't safer.

  • ...---...||

    You know what, I'm adding to that.

    No helmet I have ever had has been more comfortable than riding without one, nor even close.

    Safety? Fine.
    Comfort? Nonsense.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You never ride in the rain, I take it?

    I doubt riding with a helmet in the heat is ever going to be as comfortable as riding without one, but I like SHOEIs and their flow-through ventilation works really well. They are more than tolerable even wearing a black one in the Texas summer. As long as you are moving. 120+ degrees in the sun in a black helmet in a stop-and-go traffic jam is pretty fucking miserable, but it would be pretty fucking miserable without a helmet, too.

  • ...---...||

    "You never ride in the rain, I take it?"

    Constantly, but not if I can help it.

    And frankly, you're right, on some rare occasions, in very heavy rain, a helmet is very slightly more comfortable than going without.

  • ...---...||

    And can we also agree on something?

    One person's very subjective opinion of comfort is a poor thing to base policy on.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm not sure anyone here has come out in favor of a policy requiring helmets but, yeah, we can agree on that.

  • ...---...||

    I don't recall claiming they did. However, if you look upthread a bit, you'd be forgiven for thinking SFC B would be on board with one.

  • ||

    ""Eighty-one percent of the respondents "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed that "people should take personal responsibility for their own actions and be free to make their own decisions, even if they suffer as a result."""

    It makes sense if you factor in the idea that suffering for your decision means "penalty under law."

  • Joe M||

    I'm laughing so I don't cry.

  • Robert||

    See, that's because you're projecting your understanding so strongly onto others that you think that's an absurd interpret'n, but trust me, it's widespread, and just as valid an interpret'n as yours.

  • Upgrayyed||

    Alt title- "Survey Finds Most People Retarded"

  • ||

    So a mean average of the percentages supporting paternalistic bullshit should give us a rough estimate of the percentage of idiots in our population....hmmm. ~75%.

    And some of you people here are holding out hope that Libertarianism will someday make a breakthrough and become popular. *Sigh* I wish I could be so optimistic. I fight the good fight, but I have no delusions that I am going to win, I just refuse to fight on the wrong side. I am going to die anyway, might as well go down swinging.

  • ||

    jury acquits SPD officer of assault: A jury acquitted a Seattle police officer Wednesday who had been accused of stomping on the head of a handcuffed man.

    Officer Garth Haynes had been charged with assault after police dash-cam video showed him putting his foot on the head of a man he had just been in a fight with.

    The brawl broke out on the night of Dec. 12 outside of a Ballard bar. The man who was stomped on told police he saw Haynes, who was off duty and out of uniform, restraining a woman outside of the bar. He said he and his friends stepped in and a fight broke out.

    On Tuesday, Haynes told a different version of the story, telling jurors he was jumped when he tried to stop a woman he thought had stolen his coat.

    "Because my back was turned, I kept feeling punches from all over, like I was getting punches from the left and the right," he said.

  • ||

    Haynes' friend also testified that three men attacked them as Haynes called 911. Joel Nelson said the men tackled Haynes and one of them kicked him in the head.

    "It was a kick pretty hard and straightforward in his face," Nelson said. "You can see that he ended up with a big knot on his forehead."

    Haynes said he felt dazed after the scuffle and could have suffered a concussion. He said he didn't intentionally put his foot on anyone.

    City Attorney Pete Holmes released a statement expressing disappointment in the jury's decision.

    "Officer Haynes kicked a man in the head while the man was handcuffed and face down on the sidewalk. I am disappointed that the jury chose not to convict in these circumstances, but I respect the jury process," Holmes said. "Today’s verdict will not deter us from doing what we can to hold all people, including police officers, accountable under the law."

  • Like firing him right?||

    ""Today’s verdict will not deter us from doing what we can to hold all people, including police officers, accountable under the law.""

    So, they fired him?

    Oh, of course not.

  • ||

    i would suspect, assuming a decent past history, that he will be suspended for 2-3 weeks w/o pay.

    GENERALLY SPEAKING, when there is a two pronged criminal/dept investigation, the dept. will waitfor the criminal trial to resolve BEFORE completing the admin investigation since they then get access to the criminal trial evidence, and they can also compel his testimony etc. w.o worrying about it poisoning the criminal trial

    noted that he did testify on his behalf
    based on the concept of progressive discipline, that seems reasonable

    the incident , in the eyes of the jury did not rise to the level of criminal assault beyond a reasonable doubt. i suspect the de minimus nature ofit,as well as the aggravating factor of the racial slurs thrown his way by the victim and companions, as well as the fact that he was punched, etc. pretty heavily all weighed in the jury's decision

  • The jury doesn't employ him||

    I don't care about the jury.

    He violated policy.

    Anything short of termination is negligence.

  • ||

    i your assumption is that any violation of policy should result in automatic termination, then yes...that logically follows

    im not aware any police agency in the nation operates under that standard nor imo should they

    we are imperfect

    fwiw,i have violated policy before(i never committed excessive force, but i have violated policy)

    good agencies have a system of progressive discipline. certain offenses are automaticfiring. others get punishment depending on past history, etc

    for example, in my agency - officers who are caught DUI do not face automatic firing/ the usual penalty is 5 days suspension w/o pay

    for FIRST OFFENSE

    second offense (which to my knowledge has never happened) would be automatic firing

  • Don't care about griffee||

    "i your assumption is that any violation of policy should result in automatic termination, then yes...that logically follows"

    OR if my assumption is that a cop who gets drunk and kicks people in the head under color of authority is unfit to serve, then he should be fired.

    He is, and he should be.

  • ||

    please read the case facts.

    fwiw, as numerous articles note , at least two officers testified against him (iow,this officers don'trat other officers out canard is rubbish as i repeatedly show)

    again, is your claim

    1) all violation of policy should equal dismissal

    or
    2) THIS violation of policy should equal dismissal

    assuming he knowingly violated policy (he claimed to be suffering from a concussion btw,which is supported by evidence)

    note also, that , iirc the person who got kicked in the head didn't have bad-ass bruises, etc. i SUSPECT if he did, the jury verdict might have been guilty

    i suspect the de minimum nature was A factor

    buit that's speculation admittedly

  • WTF?||

    "please read the case facts."

    I have. The hilarity of you telling me to read...

    my assumption is that a cop who gets drunk and kicks people in the head under color of authority is unfit to serve, then he should be fired.

    He is, and he should be

  • ||

    if you look at cases like the don griffee case where he was fired and acquitted of criminal charges, the case went to arbitration, the arbitrator correctly ruled that he had been fired unjustly (i read that arbitrator report. i try to read every one in the state because they are interesting). and griffee iirc got tons of back pay for the unlawful firing and was reinstated

    that's happened more than once.

    so, the dept. intelligently waits for the criminal trialto resolve so they can have WAY more evidence to do THEIR investigation.

    in many cases, an acquittal does not mean the officer cannot be fired and/or suspended w/o pay. it happens frequently. look at the alvarez/keller case. they were acquitted/hung jury on various charges but they did get 20 days suspension w/o pay. it was also, according to reports, the first incident of such a nature,thus progressive discipline applied

  • Don't care about griffee||

    I don't care about griffee

    THIS GUY violated policy.

    Anything short of termination is negligence.

  • Don't care about griffee||

    And I'd be happy to take this to arbitration and let the pig explain why he should get to continue kicking people in the head.

  • ||

    iyo. again, if your assumption is that any violation = dismissal always, then yes your argument logically follows

  • Can you read?||

    "f your assumption is that any violation = dismissal"

    OR if my assumption is that a cop who gets drunk and kicks people in the head under color of authority is unfit to serve, then he should be fired.

    He is, and he should be.

  • ||

    If I saw someone "restraining" a woman outside a bar and not wearing a uniform, I'd intervene as well. If he's not acting in an official capacity, he has no right to detain someone. And I doubt he was allowed to act in any official capacity and detain someone after he was admittedly drinking for hours.

    And why did the SPD stonewall the dashcam until threatened with a FOIA lawsuit?

    And even with the charge, they're only batting .500 when it comes to charging head-kicking officers.

    FTA: Ofc. Shandy Cobane, the cop who threatened to "beat the fucking Mexican piss" out of a prone Latino suspect, then kicked him in the head was not charged.

    I guess the key is to kick people in the head only when on-duty.

  • ||

    ANYBODY has the right restrain somebody using REASONABLE force if they believe they have committed a theft

    i have responded to many such incidents in the last year where noncops have restrained somebody for suspicion of theft

    example of a shoplift.

    or somebody stealing property from you.

    the offduty cop CALLED 911 because he believed she took his coat and was trying to detain her since she refused to stop and wait for police (these facts are not disputed).

    the other parties REASONABLE PERCEIVED that he might be assaulting this woman. one could argue their beatdown with attendant racial slurs was excessive

    ANY person has the right to detain somebody they believe has just committed a theft or is in the process of leaving the scene
    i respond to many such incidents. in some cases, they are held at gunpoint by the noncops (like the guy who stopped the guy prowling his car )
    even

  • ||

    btw, i will wait for your admission that you were wrong in the following statement. it is wrong as a matter of law and fact, not opinion: "If he's not acting in an official capacity, he has no right to detain someone."

    that's false. in every state i have worked in

    usually, you fail intellectual honesty tests. let's see if you for once can admit error

  • ||

    What statute grants a person the right to forcibly detain another person who they think has committed a crime? Does it apply if the person doing the detaining has been drinking heavily? Does the "detained" have a right to resist detention? Are third parties obligated to allow another person to be detained if they ask for assistance?

    Sorry, but unless a person is on your property or are acting as the agent of a property owner, you are not able to forcibly detain them. If I'm wrong, show me the fucking statute! (You have 5 minutes, because I have a track practice to run at 3:00)

  • ||

    If you haven't answered in a few minutes, I'll be back to pick this up later tonight.

    And I'm not above admitting I'm wrong. I've already done it on here once today. You, on the other hand...

  • ||

    you are wrong

    here you go. again, i will await your admission of error: A citizen may arrest any person whom he observes committing the crime of petit larceny in his presence.

    http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpini.....e&id=10234

    note that a larceny (theft/petit larceny) is still "in progress" as a person tries to leave the scene. that is why store security can stop people as they try to leave the store.

    And again, inState v. Smith, (1939), 2 Wn. (2d) 118, 122, the court, referring to the particular subsection under consideration here, said:

    ". . . In order to constitute larceny, there must have been, first, an unlawful acquisition of possession of the property with the intention at the time of taking it into possession to convert it to the taker's use, and second, an appropriation of the property by the one who took it."

  • ||

    Based on the foregoing analysis and our factual assumptions, your first two questions can be considered to state facts sufficient to constitute the crime of larceny. Since the crime of larceny has been committed, these questions involve the right of a citizen to make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in his presence.

    In connection with the general question, this office, in an opinion dated December 27, 1927, to the director of health (1927-28 AGO 427), stated that:

    ". . . If a crime is actually being committed in one's presence, a person, whether he be a peace officer or not, has the power to arrest without warrant. . . ."

    note that this case is NOT exclusive to shoplifting, it is just USUALLY USED in those circs. read the entire link if you so desire

    hth

  • ||

    note also, in case sloopy is deluded. the cop believed she took HIS property, HIS jacket. he was the owner

    this is no different (except in severity of offense) as to whether you have the right to stop somebody stealing your CAR parked on PUBLIC PROPERTY

    Hint: you do

    and numerous noncops HAVE. i've seen a few where they held the car thief at gunpoint

    car theft is a felony, but the principle is the same

    slooopy apparently erroneously believes the right to detain for a theft only applies on one's OWN property. not on public property?

    that's ludicrous. if that was the case, a guy could steal your wallet (pickpocket) and you couldn't detain him?

    riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

  • Rascible||

    "the cop believed she took HIS property"

    No one cares, your oriognal claim didn;t say anythign about larceny, no you're clinging to it like a life raft.

    Can't you ever debate fairly?

  • WTF?||

    Dealing with a larceny, even as a citizen, would be "acting in an official capacity".

    Try again

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Awesome! It's 5:36 here and now I'm going to pour myself a bourbon.

    Thanks dunphy!

  • ||

    ideologues , especially internet warrior children, like sloopy, rarely have the maturity or honesty to admit error

    this is a matter of fact, not opinion, as to the right of ANYBODY to detain if they believe they person has stolen from them or another

    store security and other private persons do it all the time. i respond to MANY such incidents.

    sloopy said no such right exists. it's false

    based on hope over experience, i will give him the opp to say "my bad. he has the same right as anybody else to detain her" which he did by merely grabbing her arm AFTER she refused to wait for police arrival and he told her what he suspected her of

    in sloopy's world, a guy could steal your car from the side of the road, and you'd have "no right" to detain them

    lol

  • Rascible||

    "rarely have the maturity or honesty to admit error"

    He isn't wrong.

    Prove otherwise with links or he wins and you're a liar.

  • ||

    i just did

    see: http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpini.....e&id=10234

    IN EVERY STATE I HAVE WORKED IN, including WA ANYBODY has the right to detain for a larceny.

    not just cops

    i mean, duh.

  • Rascible||

    "i just did"

    no, you didn't.

    your link doesn't say what you're claiming it does.

    "IN EVERY STATE I HAVE WORKED IN, including WA ANYBODY has the right to detain for a larceny."

    GREAT! NOT YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM. Why do you have to play games guy? Why lie?

    so, a link that ACTUALLY says "it is wrong as a matter of law and fact, not opinion: "If he's not acting in an official capacity, he has no right to detain someone."

    that's false. in every state i have worked in"

    NOT larceny.

    Get it Mr. can't read worth a fuck and claims one thing then links to stupidity unrelated to the original claim?

  • WTF?||

    Dealing with a larceny, even as a citizen, would be "acting in an official capacity".

    Try again

  • ||

    the hell are you talking about. do i need to quote sloopy?sloopy's claim was that a private person (not a cop) cannot detain such a larceny

    they CAN,as this link (and common sense and a metric assload of cases to the contrary ) prove.

    if somebody tries to take your wallet or purse from you as you walk down the sidewalk, can you detain them?

    yes.

    can you chase them and tackle them?

    yes

    happens all the time

    hth

    sloopy is wrong. whether petit larceny (the lowest form) or felony theft, ANY PERSON has the right to use REASONABLE FORCE to detain a person committing such an act

    heck, i linked to a case in oregon where a guy SHOT a guy fleeing an UNOCUPPIED burglary of his neighbor's hose, and they didn't charge him

    note a cop could not have done so, but noncops have greater latitude vis a vis deadly force in such situations

    cops are restrained by tenn v. garner

    the noncop was not

  • WTF?||

    do i need to quote sloopy?

    Yes, because you've been lying about his claims so far.

  • ||

    sloopyinca|3.21.12 @ 2:32PM|#|show direct|ignore
    Then I stand corrected.


    Suck my dick, clown.

  • ||

    That was earlier today when MiNGe pointed out where I was wrong. Hell, I do it all the time.

    Now answer my question above, be sure to list the statute and how it applies on public property and when the person detaining is not acting as an agent of the property owner or is not the owner himself.

  • ||

  • ||

    and the cop WAS the owner, dipshit. it was HIS jacket the girl (allegedly) took.

  • Rascible||

    GREAT! NOT YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM. Why do you have to play games guy? Why lie?

    so, a link that ACTUALLY says "it is wrong as a matter of law and fact, not opinion: "If he's not acting in an official capacity, he has no right to detain someone."

    that's false. in every state i have worked in"

    NOT larceny.

    Get it Mr. can't read worth a fuck and claims one thing then links to stupidity unrelated to the original claim?

  • WTF?||

    Dealing with a larceny, even as a citizen, would be "acting in an official capacity".

    Try again

  • ||

    again, sloopy claimed that noncops do not have the right to detain for a theft, if it's on public property

    that is false, as the link proves

    hth

  • who cares||

    "again, sloopy claimed that noncops"

    Wrong, that's not what he claimed.

    It must be tough for you, dealing with regular people who you can't bully into compliance.

    It's almost certainly why you're so bad at debating and throw so many tantrums.

  • WTF?||

    again, sloopy claimed that noncops do not have the right to detain for a theft, if it's on public property

    Uh, no, he didn't.

    You can't read.

  • ||

    "Sorry, but unless a person is on your property or are acting as the agent of a property owner, you are not able to forcibly detain them."

    this is false.

    you DO NOT HAVE TO BE ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY TO DETAIN FOR THEFT

    if that was true, somebody could steal your wallet or purse while you walked down the street and you could do nothing to detain them

    that's false, i proved it false, per the link, where even if it's PETIT larceny, you can detain them

    whether or not you are on PUBLIC PROPERTY is not the issue as to detention

    i proved that false

    sloopy is wrong

    and like i said, LOTS OF PEOPLE routinely do it. they don't get charged because it's their RIGHT

    heck, i respond to AT LEAST 6-12 such incidents a year, NOT including shoplifts (which usually ARE NOT on public property of course)

  • The Mad Titan||

    Preventing a larceny = acting as the agent of a property owner

    Thanks, you just admitted you were wrong.

    hth

  • who cares||

    first dunphy claims "again, sloopy claimed that noncops do not have the right to detain for a theft, if it's on public property"

    what sloopy actually claimed "unless a person is on your property or are acting as the agent of a property owner, you are not able to forcibly detain them"

    So, you were wrong.

    BYE!

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Hey, I'm just thanking you for using the term "reasonable" so many times in your post. I needed to indulge in an early evening tipple.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    My body... my choice.

    Funny how only liberals get to decide how that phrase is used.

  • ||

    Bad analogy. Your right to choose ends when you exhale what another may breathe, or you spoil their view. All their choice does is violently extract another human being from it's home and murder it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I disagree, sloop... liberals definitely only mean "my body, my choice" when it comes to a narrow range of behavior (abortion, and being gay).

    Team Red, OTOH, pretty much shits on the self-ownership concept as well.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I should add, I hate to disagree with you, sloopy. You're a good egg.

  • ||

    agree. anybody who thinks drug usage should be criminal by definition does not support "MY BODY MY CHOICE".

    ditto those who oppose prostitution legality or organ sale legality

    all of which both teams usually oppose

  • ||

    Just to play devil's advocate for a second (because I'm firmly on the libertarian side on all of the above):

    If wearing a seatbelt can be proven to make the difference between a driver flying through the car window on impact and the driverless car continuing to spin out of control and cause more damages/injuries vs. the driver having enough support to bring the car to a stop after impact, does that not validate the law as a public safety device and not simply an intrusion on personal choice? I don't claim to understand the physics of car crashes, but the logic makes sense that the more likely the driver gets killed or knocked unconscious, the more destruction might result to other people besides the driver.

    Also, who pays to scrape motorcyclist guts off the road? It's more complicated when such things are socialized.

  • ||

    Also, I can somewhat understand the logic that one can't take full responsibility for one's actions without better information on the products they're using. In that regard, food labelling might help people make wiser decisions and could save public health dollars in the long run. Again, not agreeing with it (that should be up to the restaurant), but it's not necessarily incoherent.

  • The Mad Titan||

    If wearing a seatbelt can be proven to make the difference between a driver flying through the car window on impact and the driverless car continuing to spin out of control and cause more damages/injuries vs. the driver having enough support to bring the car to a stop after impact, does that not validate the law as a public safety device and not simply an intrusion on personal choice?

    No. I don't like to use edge cases to argue policy, and tend to dismiss arguments that rely on them. In addition, any crash energetic enough to cause the driver to fly through the windshield would probably disorient them, likely enough to keep them from operating the controls.

    Also, that's not a public safety issue though, by my definition.

    That's an individual safety issue, for someone when they're in public.

  • ||

    note that, just for the record, seatbelt laws (just like the requirement for a license and insurance) do not apply on private property, but only public roads.

    i had a collision the other day where the guy was unlicensed and uninsured and struck another car. the other driver was pissed, but i could not cite the wrongful driver for ANYTHING since it was private property and the license/insurance requirements (and seatbelt) don't apply

    in WA state, if the license is SUSPENDED, that can be charged on private property, but not the mere lack of a license

  • who cares||

    and why did you tack that stupid irrelevant story on here?

    Get back to being wrong about detaining people by changing your claim mid-debate

    It must be tough for you, dealing with regular people who you can't bully into compliance.

    It's almost certainly why you're so bad at debating and throw so many tantrums.

  • ||

    i;m not wrong

    this is sloopy's claim

    "Sorry, but unless a person is on your property or are acting as the agent of a property owner, you are not able to forcibly detain them."

    that's false. anybody can detain for a theft, whether on private or public property

    if sloopy was correct, and a guy was stealing your bag from a park bench you sat on, you could not detain him

    is THAT your claim?

  • The Mad Titan||

    ""Sorry, but unless a person is on your property or are acting as the agent of a property owner"

    Preventing a larceny = acting as the agent of a property owner

    Thanks, you just admitted you were wrong.

    hth

  • ||

    lol i'll give you psr sophistry

    again, in sloopy's world, a person CANNOT detain a person for theft, if not on their private property or acting as the agent of that property.

    the officer believed the woman had taken his jacket, he ASKED her to stop and wait for police, she refused and walked away and he detained her

    he claims that is illegal. it is not. and proven so

    hth

    when you are on public property, and detaining somebody for stealing from you, you are not acting as the agent of the govt. (public property) or anybody else except your private person, but it's legal. as proven

  • MNG||

    "again, in sloopy's world, a person CANNOT detain a person for theft, if not on their private property or acting as the agent of that property."

    That's not what he said.

    Do you think we don't notice you change words?

  • ||

    First of all, I said they could not forcibly detain as a private citizen. And these cops gave up the right to act as a private citizen the minute they identified themselves as cops. Everything they did after that point, which was not an arrest according to every document I've seen pertaining to this case, was under color of authority. And if they were not arresting this woman or detaining her for what was a misunderstanding about the jackets, she had a right to resist their physical assault on her person.

    You're arguing against a ghost, dunphy. And you're doing it by immediately twisting my words into what you want me to say. And with that, I'll say "fuck you" and move on with my evening.

  • ||

    Also from your link, shithead:

    In 4 Am.Jur., Arrest, § 35, it is said that:

    "While the authority of a private person to arrest is more limited than that of an officer, in general it may be said that a private person may arrest an offender against criminal laws where the offense is committed in his presence; . . ."

    And in § 38:

    ". . . a private person may arrest for an affray or breach of the peace committed in his presence, and while it is continuing, but not for a misdemeanor on suspicion, regardless of how well it is grounded. . . ."

    Gee, who's the liar now? Is it me, or is it the man that constantly says citizens have a right to detain that is looser than that of the police.

    Have a nice day, dumbass.

  • Robert||

    But in NY, and I suspect in many other states, traffic laws do apply on some types of private property that are open to the public, i.e. parking lots of businesses open to the public.

  • Robert||

    Interesting about the suspended vs. nonexistent license in Wash. on private property. Is someone with a suspended license allowed to renounce hir license before something like that happens?

  • ||

    sloopy's claim: "Sorry, but unless a person is on your property or are acting as the agent of a property owner, you are not able to forcibly detain them."

    it's false, and proven so.

    IF IT WAS TRUE, btw you could not detain a person stealing your car if it was parked on a public way

    sloopy is wrong

    you could not detain somebody stealing your purse from a park bench you sat on

    it's a RIDICULOUS CLAIM but when sloopy gets itno his "it's acop they suck derp derp derp" mode, all logic flies out the door

    again, read his quote

    it's ridiculous

  • The Mad Titan||

    Preventing a larceny = acting as the agent of a property owner

    Thanks, you just admitted you were wrong.

    hth

  • ||

    no, it's not ACTING AS AN AGENT

    you can't be the agent of yourself. that's not what the word means

    hth

  • MNG||

    "you can't be the agent of yourself. "

    Did you really just say that?

    "that's not what the word means"

    The define it for us, because you're wrong.

  • Joe M||

    I'm with MNG. A cornerstone of libertarian thought is personal agency.

  • ||

    hth

    Too bad for you that it does. And by "it," I mean the link you provided.

    And fellow reasonoids, notice the date for the link he posts: March 19, 1957.

    I guess he couldn't find anything more current, could he?

  • ||

    hth

    Well, this might. You keep preaching about how WA lets people defend themselves or detain people, but as you can tell, the authorities up there sure as fuck don't want you to. Even though there are probably more people that end up dead from the business end of a police sidearm or tazer than from "civilian" weapons.

  • ||

    FTA: Vigilantes risk felony charges of their own, though the law does allow citizens some room to defend themselves and their property. Washington law RCW 9A.16.020 allows use of force in these instances:
    • When used to arrest someone who has committed a felony and deliver the suspect to a public officer.
    • When used by a party about to be injured or about to suffer "malicious interference " to his own property. The force must be "not more than is necessary."
    • When force is "reasonably" used by the owner of property to detain someone who unlawfully enters his property.

  • ||

    Note my comment you went haywire on? I believe forcibly detain were the words I used. Too bad you tried to twist them and then use a 53 year old letter from the AG as evidence. Well, my link shows the statute that applies today (RCW 9A.16.020), and how a private citizen is very limited in how he/she can use force. Even the police say they are much more limited, shit for brains.

    You're a fucking joke of a human being that doesn't even know his goddamn job and/or how "civilians" can detain or arrest people. Unless, of course, you do, and this is a bunch of lip service to get some kind of libertarian bona fides to add to your growing list of accomplishments.

  • ||

    Oh, and hth.

  • shrike||

    Abolish the wages system

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • Piscahills09||

    The post of thread is very nice and informative, I often come this forum and really love it! Actually I love various kinds of food so much and this forum I learn much things ,and this forum constantly hold many activities that can make us meet many people

  • birkin 35||

    Public Health is a big problem,we should help us all the same

  • hermes sacs||

    1. prendre en cuir. Fournisseurs le meilleur au monde en cuir, le 1er tour des pouvoirs de sélection de votre peau reste à Hermès, Deuxièmement, nous allons utiliser d’autres marques telles que LV, GUCCI. Toute défectueuse en cuir Hermès ne sont certainement pas, Hermès en cuir est à seulement 10% de l’ensemble du cuir bonne-sac hermes birkin hermès.

  • sac birkin||

    Types de cuir. Essentiellement, le cuir le plus fréquemment utilisé d’Hermès: peau de vache, peau de mouton, peau de lézard, autruche, peau de crocodile. 2009 sur des choses de serpents. Une chose à dire de la vache, birkin hermès en cuir sont de nombreux points (en général dans l’intérieur du cuir, modèle et les types de bovins à

  • ||

    Surely vaccinations are also largely about protecting others?

  • Doc||

    FYI, There are no vaccines for TB used in the U.S.

    Many trying to be developed, but the century old BCG vaccine was never good enough to be worth the use here.

  • Big J||

    One thing that I haven't seen in the comments so far is the idea of diffusion of cost. I am not saying I believe in all the nanny laws but lets looks at the associated costs. If you eat trans fats, get fat, have a heart attack, and go to the hospital; who pays for that. You do, sometimes, but insurance is a risk pool, so everyone else in who is a member of that insurance group pays too. If you are on medicare or medicaid, WE THE PEOPLE pay for your heart attack. You enjoyed the burger, we covered the cost. You ride without a helmet, fall, and smash your brain; the tax payers and other people in the insurance group pay the $250K -$500K that a head injury costs to treat. I'm not saying that these nanny laws are ok, or that I agree with all of them. But unless you take 100% responsability for all the costs associated with your risk, you are passing the costs off on other people and maybe those other people should have some say in the risks you take. Maybe make the law: if you fall without a helmet public money can't be used to treat you. If you OD on drugs, public money can't be used to treat you. If you smoke, medicare or medicaid won't cover some forms of cancer, heart disease, or lung problems. It sounds cruel but it's personal responsability.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement