my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Proms Are Getting Strict. (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Proms Are Getting Strict. Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 01:11 PM                     Steve, I don't have too much of a problem with the seat belt issue being thrown out. Apparently it has to be "fine-tuned" a little because it is too vague. Apparently, the judge thought that the law was confusing, and some people don't know how and when to fasten the seat belt if the vehicle is equipped with them. Although I think this is a bunch of , I would still "kinda" support the judge's decision. The problem I have is the charge of a firearm and ammunition in the hands of a convicted felon with two outstanding arrest warrents against him being tossed. That is the one who probably will rob another bank or blow your head off on the freeway. But hear again, driving is a privilege, and not a right. Disobey the laws and expect to get fined, or lose the privilege of driving. By the way, I fully support the seat belt law. If I get nailed not wearing one, I am not going to find a way to wiggle out of it. I'll just pay the fine, and that will be that. I think it is a good law, and it should be enforced. Try to take an aircraft flight in a commercial airline. You WILL fasten the belt or You WILL be removed from the aircraft if you refuse to do so. The pilot will not allow his aircraft to become airborne if he or she knows someone is in violation of the seat belt law on his or her aircraft. So what's the difference? Maybe we should start a topic on this..... [ 05-23-2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 05-23-2003 01:14 PM                        I don't know that things are substantially harder for kids these days... mainly, the balance is different. Peer pressure, which was always there, focuses more on different things than when I was in high school. The leading edge of the pot craze had just barely entered our area (and schools) when I graduated... I didn't have to deal with it... and the other drugs were years off. Sex was mostly boisterous pontificating among the guys. The ones that got it didn't have to brag about it... something the others didn't figure out until much later. Personally, I'm extremely fortunate to have 3 great daughters here, and I think the theatre (drive-in) environment has had a huge impact on their upbringing... our personal standards notwithstanding. All 3 are involved in our operations, though only one appears to have the passion for it, and has developed into a great manager. The others appreciate (and take full advantage of) the economic side of working for the place. My younger 2 are Soph & Junior students at a local private high school, which we're (just) able to afford. They understand what it takes for us to be able to put them there, and they've done their part. They're both national honor society members, musically and athletically talented, self-motivated and very different from each other. The school doesn't allow much more than exposed arms, legs & necks, so that's not a problem. Oh... after public elementary school, both of them ASKED to go to this place. My biggest challenge in raising these kids is "the DAD thing"... as they're fully in the "boyfriend" stage now!  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 02:21 PM                     Sounds like you have some great kids, Jack. I am happy for you.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-23-2003 03:50 PM                     The only way that finding evidence in an illegal way should ever fly is if there is a SUBSTANTIAL penalty to the people obtaining the evidence illegally (as in the officers being charged, loose their jobs...etc.). There isn't much worse a government offical can do than violate one's rights...that IS why the Bill of Rights were created. As to seatbelts on a plane...their enforcement, like the raising of the seatbacks is also on the stupid nature. That is no example. In the car...the interpretation that driving is a privilege was a misinterpretation of the intent of this country from the get-go...it should have always been interpreted as a right. Had cars been around when the bill of rights was formed, it would have been right up there with free speech and everyone's favorite, gun rights. The right to freely travel about the country was well established (without tolls, mind you). Most Americans have not read the constitution...the Rights as spelled out in the constitution were never written or to be interpreted as the only ones...just the ones that were deemed to be necessary to actually write out. We are created with certain inaliable rights and AMONG these are... not that these are the only ones. The government couldn't profit off of cars the way they do if driving was the god-given right that it is. And before anyone goes on about how if it was a right the governement couldn't place controls on the abusers of the right...don't even start...one's rights can ALWAYS be taken away with due-process. And seatbelt laws are just plain stupid...if you like em...show your support and wear one...I do but I'll defend to my dying day the ability to choose not to...it is government meddling in where it should not. Steve  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-23-2003 04:57 PM                  Steve is on target about the government sticking it's collective noses into our private lives. The about driving is a "privilege"... HA! What a joke! It's beyond me how they figure that one! I can understand vehicle registration and even driver licensing to "control" crime, etc. But let's call it for what it REALLY is driven by...$$$$...taxes for the state coffers. The other reasons cited are by-products. I think the seatbelt laws were enacted for monetarily reasons and not for safety. I think it was the insurance companies, and to some extent the auto companies, pushing for the laws to reduce their legal exposure and mitigate their lawsuit settlements. Same for the air-bag laws. I'm not saying that devices do not save lives, they do. But it should be a freedom-of-choice and personal responsibility issue, not the States. (I won't even mention the stupid motorcycle or bike helmet laws!) I grew up with, and always had and still have, performance and fast cars so it was very normal to me to wear a seatbelt. I always wear my seatbelt and I do feel more "secure" with it. About the seatbelt law that was thrown out for being too vague... Oh PLEEZE! STOP wasting my tax dollars on your stupidity and excuses. If you're in a vehicle and it's on a public steet traffic lane, and you're not having sex, wear the belt! Geeze! If we weren't such a litigious society in general, and people were held to the consequences of their own actions, I think we ALL would have more freedom and a better quality of life in general. I really get tired of paying hidden product costs, or insurance costs, or medical costs, or taxes, or etc for people lacking common sense or just plain stupid people or their actions. While some products are indeed un-safe or dangerous and should be held liable, I fail to see why a lawn mower or private airplane manufacturer should be held liable for the dumb-ass that sticks their hand into the blade to see if it is rotating. WE ALL pay for these jerks not only in product costs, but in insurances and taxes...etc. Let the gene pool be weeded out by natural selection. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 05:56 PM                     Steve and Phil, I totally disagree with most of your assessments. The reason being, I am concerned about the rights and welfare of other people. That's a major problem with society today....nobody seems to be concerned about the safety of others, their rights or their welfare. They are more interested in themselves, and the rest of the people. I will stand to my convictions. It is a matter of responsibility to yourselves as well as others. I started another thread on seatbelts.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-23-2003 06:47 PM                  Paul, I said IF ***I*** want to be stupid enough to not wear seatbelts, that should be MY decision. And, if I get killed, it should NOT be the responsibility of the public or the government or ANYONE else. It has NOTHING to do with others' safety. Unfortunately, because of stupid laws, we ALL wind up paying for the irresponsible. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 06:53 PM                     Phil, I respectfully say that if you are concerned about the person sitting next to you in your car, or the family you might plow into because you lost control of your car, I think you would agree that perhaps wearing a seatbelt to protect them is not too bad of an idea. Re-gaining control of your car because you are still securely in the driver's seat due to the fastened seat belt might just save the life of that person or persons riding with you. As I said before, I don't think the law is stupid at all.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-23-2003 07:19 PM                  Paul, again, you are totally missing my point here. It's NOT about safety for myself or for my passengers, or for anyone else....It's about the GOVERNMENT TELL US WHAT TO DO. AGAIN, I don't think anyone would deny that seatbeltds are a safe way to go and provide many benefits...for all. I don't know how else to get my point across to you. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 09:55 PM                     Phil said: quote: It's about the GOVERNMENT TELL US WHAT TO DO. I am sorry, I canot accept that. Phil, please read the Bill Of Rights. You will discover that it is written in such a manner as the government will tell us what to do under certain circumstances if we screw up. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment XVI Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In Washington State: ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged. SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. California Article 1 Declaration of Rights SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; ..... SEC. 11. Habeas corpus may not be suspended unless required by public safety in cases of rebellion or invasion. SEC. 12. A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for: (a) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great; (b) Felony offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person's release would result in great bodily harm to others; or (c) Felony offenses when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released. From North Dakota: Article I Sec. 5. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, [b]when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require. Sec. 9. Every man may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege. Sec. 10. The citizens have a right,in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for the common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for the redress of grievances, or for other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance. Sec. 13 In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial; to have the process of the court to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf; and to appear and defend in person and with counsel. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Sec. 23. Every citizen of this state shall be free to obtain employment wherever possible, and any person, corporation, or agent thereof, maliciously interfering or hindering in any way, any citizen from obtaining or enjoying employment already obtained, from any other corporation or person, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor. As I look over all these, I don't think we are "losing our rights." I look at it this way.....Commit the crime, do the time, and the penalty.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-23-2003 10:01 PM                  I give up.... you just don't get it... >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Bruce McGee Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1776 From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular. Registered: Aug 1999 posted 05-23-2003 10:11 PM                     I was wearing my seat belts LONG before it became the LAW.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-23-2003 11:47 PM                     Paul, I don't know how you read any of those articles and somehow figured it was the government granting us rights...they all spell out what the government CANT do...also the Free Speech close in Washington may be in contradiction with the US Constitution which also has the clause of being supreme and that the free states only get to control what the US Constitution leaves behind. That is, the 1st amendment of the US constitution out weighs Washington and every other state. "Prior Restraints" are almost always held unconstitutional. That is, the government may not restrain someone or somthing based soley on what might happen. That is, because I might get into a car wreck does not give the government the power to restrain me as if it were certainty. Steve  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-24-2003 12:11 AM                     I think you will find most states will restrain you from driving if the law enforcement personnel detect you are intoxicated on booze or drugs. They will probably arrest you for public drunkenness first to keep you from killing an innocent person with a motor vehicle. I thank our state troopers, sheriffs, and local police for that attitude. In several states, even taking a swig of Listerine is sufficient, especially California with the truckers. We all know California is one of the most liberal states in the union. When it comes to intoxication and motor vehicles, California has "0" tolerance on the truckers as well as public transportation facilities. As an edit: I might mention that we have computer devices the driver has to blow in in order to prove they are sober enough to drive. If they are drunk, .08 BAC or above, forget it. It is impossible to start the engine of the vehicle. And, if for some reason that system was bypassed and you get caught driving drunk, you might as well "hang it up" because you are going to get the book thrown at you. Some time ago, some citizen in Canada drove to the police station to take a test to see if he was too drunk to drive. He was....and the RCMP promptly threw him into the "Hooscow". In Washington State, if you are drunk and sleeping in your vehicle while parked on the shoulder of the road, you can still be charged for "being in control of a motor vehicle while under the influence" even if you thought you were smart enough to toss the keys in the field. One thing you don't want to do in Washington State...and that is getting arrested for DUI. It is an automatic 24 hours in the "slammer" if you do. Your car will be impounded at your expense unless there is someone immediately available to drive it home. We don't mess around up here with people who drive under the influence. I have called a few in myself on the cell phone if I even suspected someone was possibly drunk. You will find many of us do the same. We simply will not tolerate drunk driving. I was taught to respect the law and the enforcement personnel. I do that to the best of my ability. I have many friends who are cops, and I respect them as people as well as the job they have to do. Sure, I have challenged a few tickets now and then, and won. And I will also say that some tickets I did not challenge should have been challenged because some of my law enforcement friends said I should have under the circumstances. Whether it was a "bad call" or not, I have the utmost respect for our law enforcement personnel here in Washington State, as well as other states I have traveled through in the west or mid-west. We, in Washington State, have the reputation of having one of the most honest, fair, and professional police organizations in the country. Ours believe in public relations and outstanding leadership. The "rottin' apples" in our law enforcement personnel are very quickly weeded out. [ 05-24-2003, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.