Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Proms Are Getting Strict.

This is topic Proms Are Getting Strict. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002088

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-21-2003, 01:15 PM:

People seem to squawk about new rules and laws. Quite honestly, I am one of them. However, when I read about the contents this link, I think it is in order.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-20-prom-cover_x.htm

If the kids would act like young ladies and gentlemen as they are supposed to at a social function such as a Prom, this problem would not exist.

We never had problems like this that I know of when I was a teen-ager in the mid 1950's, but sadly, times have changed.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-21-2003, 01:32 PM:

We didn't have problems like this in 1975 when I had my prom either.

I went through a spell in the 1980's when I drank alot, but now, if I drink a beer or two, I will have bad headaches in the morning... So I dont drink anymore.

Young people grow up so quickly these days...

Posted by Ray Bernardi (Member # 1615) on 05-21-2003, 01:44 PM:

We just had a horrible accident here in Goffstown NH that involved teens and booze. They estimate the car was doing over 90 mph in a 25 mph zone. It had enough velocity to tear off the front of a garage, uproot several trees, and finally come to rest upside down. The male driver was thrown 30 feet from the car, the girl occupant stayed with the wreck. Miraculously both survived but with very serious injuries. I don't know if this was associated with a prom but I know several were being held that night. It's too bad we don't understand our mortality at an earlier age. I wish there was a solution to these kinds of problems that was easy to implement, but that's asking a lot. I only hope all the talking I do to my kids about drugs and booze is sinking in.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-21-2003, 01:45 PM:

I like that they told the kids "YOU come up with a workable plan yourselves, or there won't be any more proms." [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-21-2003, 03:58 PM:

It is interesting to me that kids always harp about "expressing their individuality" to no end, but then suddenly toss that aside and conform with the masses when it comes to alcohol and drugs. Why? Because they are stupid. I have never had any interest in drugs of any kind or alcohol. Sure I'll have a few drinks on special occasions and whatnot, but I don't consider getting drunk a great time... don't quite see the allure. Maybe I am retarded?

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 05-21-2003, 05:59 PM:

I myself don't really see the point in getting drunk, not only is alcohol a potent disinhibitor, it dehydrates you! [Razz]

Heh, and going to prom isn't such an 'individual' thing to do anyway… [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-21-2003, 10:58 PM:

Hmmm...the guys get patted down while the girls only have their purses checked? Sounds like illegal sex discrimination.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-21-2003, 11:36 PM:

Joe said:

quote:
It is interesting to me that kids always harp about "expressing their individuality"

I have to agree.

But I think most kids are good. It is the not-so-good 10% that screw it up for the rest of them. I think it goes back to family values. I see where there was several adult arrests in the hazing incident in Illinois. Those adults have been accused of supplying 3 kegs of beer to the hazing party. The adults that were arrested were parents of one of the students that attended the hazing.

True, we live in a "free society", but some of the people (kids and adults as well) seem to think "anything goes." Well, if they think that way, they really missed the boat big time. They better go do a little research on responsibilites and respect for and towards society, themselves, and others. There are limits to everything.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 05-22-2003, 02:16 AM:

If those kids were smart, they would ditch the high school proms and go to this one.....

http://www.geocities.com/thunderstruck_under_the_stars/

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-22-2003, 02:56 AM:

I think the vast majority of the current crop of kids are good. The few bad apples, as in the past and as always, give all kids a bad name mostly because of the 11:00 PM News hounds looking for a story. After all, it IS ratings month!

In the cited story/link, I think it's perverted that the Asst. Principal "pats down" the male students. At the VERY least, and ***IF*** school authorities felt it was necessary, they should hire independent professionals such as off-duty police. I'm wondering if Mr. Calen "enjoys" feeling around young guys for "things"? AND, of course, girls are known to hide things in other places than their purse. What a JOKE!

I also think it is VERY much harder to be a kid today than in the past. Because of technology, the lack of moral/religious/spritual goals and ideals, and the "me" & "instant gradification" attitudes, etc. in our society, it is even more important to be responsible adult parents and set honorable examples. Unfortunately, not many do.

Most of the youth problems arise because many parents DO NOT supervise their kids. I mean, kids will be kids. They will ALWAYS challenge the convention and try to push the envelope ...and this is natural ...and good! BUT! They NEED limits and being held to them or deal with REALISTIC consequences. NOT some wimpy parent who thinks their "precious" would "NEVER do anything like that!" Or those that is afraid to be a REAL PARENT!

While I was no angel when in High School (Or Jr High...ummm or grade school...), I agree, I could never understand the lure of getting wasted on booze or drugs and spending the night speaking to the porcelain god or worse. (Actually, I WAS an angel in H.S.) [Big Grin]

Hell, the only thing I was thinking about at my senior prom was if I was going to get laid or not! [evil]

I didn't! (DAMN!) [Frown]

I think a lot of parents are more interested in being "friends" with their kids and their friends rather than being PARENTS.

The recent example of the low-life POS's in the club "initiation" points to the fact that NO ONE will take responsibility for their actions. The fact that the parents of some of the students are pursuing legal action against the school for "disciplining" their "angels" makes me want to toss my cookies! [puke]

It is a sign of the times... COMPLETE disregard for personal responsibility and the "cover-your-ass-blame-anyone-but-yourself" for YOUR actions. What is really sad is the LLPOS parents AND lawyers that teach the slackers that it's OK to "Do unto others, before they do unto you". [bs]

I think those parents AND lawyers should be belittled and serve time themselves! [thumbsup]

FLAME OFF

Have a nice day! [Smile]

>>> Phil

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 05-22-2003, 09:24 AM:

High School kids are alot different than 18 years ago when I was in school.

Having worked in the Nashville area as a mobile DJ, I did my fair share of proms. They started off great in the late 80's, but by the mid 90's... they all sucked. The kids were jerks, beligerent, and didn't give a crap what guidelines I had to follow as far as the music was concerned.

My high school prom (1985) was held in the school gym. Most of the ones I attended as a DJ were always held in a very nice upscale hotels or a huge paddle wheel'd riverboat. The teacher sponsors and faculty really never seemed to get it. They would spend $3000.00 to rent the ballroom at a hotel, spend another $2,800.00 on chicken fingers and chocolate chip cookies, another $2,000.00 on decorations and fake plant rental... but they always.. always bitched and complained if the DJ tried to charge more than $350.00 for the entertainment!! That was always the case!!

Proms here in Nashville always seemed to follow the same pattern year after year. DJ starts the music at 7:00 p.m. - and nobody dances for an hour, they just looked at us and said.."You suck". From 6:30 p.m. until about 8:30, most of the students stood outside in the lobby in line for pictures. At 8:30, they would come into the ballroom and maybe dance (mostly not). At 8:45 p.m. all of the seniors and their dates would go back out to the lobby to get lined up for senior presentation. Presentation's always sucked. The teacher sponsors would always insist on using the microphone provided by the hotel which fed the muffled speakers in the ceiling.... when we had a 3000 watt sound system sitting idle about 20 feet away.
After the presentation, they crown the King and Queen (which was usually a jock and a cheerleader) then they'd have the "Senior dance". As soon as the senior dance was over (usually by 9:20 +/-) the place would clear out like someone yelled "fire" in the building, leaving me, my partner, and the "Special Ed" kids there by ourselves until 11:00 p.m.

The very last prom I worked, I was on stage, had the place rockin' and some obnoxious black dude kept coming up to me demanding that I play "Master P". When I finally told him there was no way I would play it... he flashed me the inside of his tux jacket to reveal a shiny looking chrome pistol. He looked at me and said, "I bet you gonna play it now mother fu**er!!"

At that point I realized it just wasn't worth it anymore. I could have been on the other side of town making $1,200.00 at a Saturday night wedding reception, where I was usually handed a $20.00 bill to encourage me to play a request... not a gun in my face.

Maybe there are some good kids left somewhere... but most of the ones I encountered were thugs.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-22-2003, 12:10 PM:

Barry, it is a shame you had to go through sumething like that. I am sorry. [Frown]

Posted by Ray Bernardi (Member # 1615) on 05-22-2003, 12:47 PM:

I have two good kids! They have both been taught to respect others and empathize with their feelings. They'd never act like the kids you mention here. As for the gun, I would have sucker punched the bastard with everything I had. I'm 6'1" 240 pounds. Used to be a football player. I would have put him in intensive care.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-22-2003, 12:59 PM:

Ray, in this case, two sucker punches would have been better than one. Someone should have done it to that dude along time ago.... [Wink]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-22-2003, 01:51 PM:

Barry, I hope your negative experiences haven't jaded you toward life...it sorta sounds that way. You will be dealing with a lot of kids and the public in general as an owner of a theatre/drive-in.

Dealing with the general public and the low-lifes is the main reason I didn't open a theatre. I don't need that crap. [Mad]

As I mentioned in my post above, I agree times have changed. But, percentage-wise, I don't think anything has drastically changed. There were low-lifes, violent, and demented people in the 50's, 40's, 30's ...hell even in Biblical times. I'm sure there are DJ's that got muscled and had guns pulled on them because they didn't play some record in the 50's "payola" era.

So far as sucker punching that guy... I would have just pulled out my .357 and shot him. I mean this IS Los Angeles! [Big Grin]

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-22-2003, 01:59 PM:

Phil said:

quote:
I would have just pulled out my .357 and shot him.

I had the same basic thought when I was typing a previous post. Although I would not have shot him, I would have exposed my .44 Anaconda the same way he displayed his and say, "Duh, mine is bigger than yours." [Big Grin]

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 05-22-2003, 04:05 PM:

What's lost is the fact that "WE" are not in high school. These times are different from when you and I where in high school. Most of the people responding to the article are 30+. I'm 25 and the last time I was in a high school class was back in 96. I can relate more to these kids than you. I'm not saying you are wrong but you don't understand what these kids go threw today. I don't even understand. They have more pressure, stress and fear than we can even imagine.

The world has changed in the last 10 years and these kids are changing with it. We see it changing but are not the ones who deal with it.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-22-2003, 04:20 PM:

William: You may be out of touch, but please don't make assumptions that all of us old farts are not in tune with the younger generation...or a constantly changing world in general. Everone has to deal with a changing world since most of us live in it. The ones that grump and grumble about everything are usually the ones that cannot change with the times and are living in the past, or are too f*cking lazy to do something constructive about it....no matter how small the part is.

Many of us have kids in HS or have kids that graduated recently. Many even have good and honest parental relationships with their kids. Some of us devote a lot of time to youth groups or other constructive endeavors to help kids in general and have much contact with today's kids from all walks of life.

Go back and re-read some of the posts. You'll see that there are some of the views that you cite, but there are also other views.

>>> Phil

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-22-2003, 07:35 PM:

Well as being the typical [evil]

student in High School I remember that after one dance the principle canceled our formal and you know what we held it any way in the same place and when the principle threatened actions it was reminded by a lawyer that a school canot at anytime outside of its premisies or on a sanctioned event have any control over what a person does. Needless to say all had a good time and none should up for morning classes [Big Grin]

Kids will be kids and I really haven't seen much difference then and now between the rebeliion of growing up ( probably still rebelling against what I don't know [Smile]

)

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-22-2003, 08:10 PM:

Barry,

Let me get this straight....nobody really dances at the prom, most of the kids aren't even listening to what you are playing or enjoying it. You wonder why you could only get $350?

One thing I noticed that changed for the kids shortly after my graduation (early '80s)...when we had dances (from Jr. High onwards) the music was LIVE not DJ. Real live bands played at the dances and such. I believe the prom was a DJ though (didn't go) since the music wasn't the important thing.

The kids after us got DJs...what a rip...there is nothing like a real live band to play at the dances and gatherings. I remember when they started cracking down on the bands from playing too loud too.

As to the kids having it harder or more pressure today...what a load of BS. Kids have it different today...but you know kids have always had it different.

A kid growing up in the early 1900s probably was part of a large family and would have to grow up fast to help take care of the family....a kid in the middle part of the 1900s faced the various wars.

A kid later in the century had Vietnam and all of those worries and pressures...not to mention it was then EXPECTED that they would go to college (true in the 80s)...

...kids have always been under various pressures but different pressures that reflect their times.

Anyone ever see _BYE BYE BIRDIE_...."Whats the matter with kids today"

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-22-2003, 08:38 PM:

I can't ever remember being under much if any pressure when I was growing up. I was allowed to pretty much go the direction I wanted to do...unless it was felt I was straying into dangerous territory. I had alot of hobbies and learned about alot of things either through schooling or on my own. I was lucky, I missed the draft by one month!! No Vietnam for me.

When I look back at my chldhood I guess I had it pretty good overall and I certainly do have alot to be thankful for today. After all, how many kids grow up in life doing today what they wanted to do when they were ten.......
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-22-2003, 09:57 PM:

You wanted to do B-chains since you were 10? [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-22-2003, 10:35 PM:

I'd have to say that "B" Chains were an added thing that was thrown in with the rest of it later on in life........hardly a neusance....just an occasional part of life now.
Mark

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-22-2003, 11:21 PM:

I don't think young people have not changed that much. In my days of young, we had WWII, and Korea. And, I am a VietNam Vet. So I agree with Steve when he said:

quote:
As to the kids having it harder or more pressure today...what a load of BS.

Several things have gone wrong.

1. If a young person is going to do something shady, no law is going to stop them. As an axample, some 17 year old was arrested for carrying a loaded machine gun in his back pack in school at Evergreen High School in White Center area just south of Seattle.
2. They know the punishment before they even commit the crime.
3. Parants cannot disipline their children because they could get sued by thier own kids.
4. Teachers cannot disipline the students for the same reason. If they send a student to the front office because the student was downright abusive towards the teacher, the student <*_might*_> get suspended from school and they look at that as a mini-vacation.
5. The punishment in a Court of Law does not fit the crime. All the judge seems to do is pat them on the Poo Poo and say, "You are a naughty boy (or girl) so don't do it again." and let them go with little or no punishment.
6. Many young people have no respect for another person's rights or property. That goes back to up bringing. Chances are, the parents are the same way.

I could go on and on.

Yesterday, a Superior Court judge refused to enforce the state's seat belt law, finding it too vague. That decision also led the judge to dismiss drug and weapons charges filed in the same case.

The case began in February, when a State Patrol trooper stopped a pickup truck carrying three people on Washington 20. The trooper said he had noticed the passenger nearest the door was not wearing a seat belt. A change in state law last year made not wearing a seat belt a primary offense that law enforcement could use to make a traffic stop.

During the stop, the trooper reported smelling marijuana and alcohol and seeing a bottle of whiskey with some of the liquor gone.

The trooper discovered two outstanding warrants against the passenger nearest the door and arrested him.

A search also uncovered a small tin containing marijuana, a Cobray M-11 9mm handgun and ammunition. The Everett man, who had been sitting between the driver and the passenger who had drawn the trooper's notice, admitted the drugs and weapon were his, according to State Patrol reports. As a convicted felon, the man was barred from legally possessing a gun.

In her May 15 ruling, The Superior Court judge suppressed that evidence, since it flowed from enforcement of a law she found unconstitutional, and dismissed the drug and weapons charges based on that evidence.

WTF??????? [puke]

Who do you blame for the problems of today?

A Court of Law is nothing more than a contest to determine who has a better lawyer.

Isn't it disgusting to know that when someone breaks into your home at night, rapes your wife, kills one of your kids, steals or destroys your personal property and if you are lucky enough to get the upper hand and bash the bastard in the head with a baseball bat, you are the one who will go to jail longer than the SOB that violated you, your wife, or your children. [Mad]

Something is definately wrong here.....

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-23-2003, 03:27 AM:

I agree with Steve that the issues and pressures are basically the same, just different. But, I think in general kids in the USA have it easier today in many respects and more difficult in others.

USA kids just don't know how good they got it. Travel to another country and see what pressures and life-struggles kids there have to contend with. I'm not referring to third-world countries but places like Japan, Hong Kong, etc.

It is the far left and their ridiculous perverse attitudes and forcing liberal laws down our throats under the guise of being "Politically Correct" or some other line of [bs]

.

The permissive judges, the lame ball-less politicians, and the POS lawyers that have made a mockery of our laws and judicial system seem to be more interested in making a buck/a name/getting re-elected than what is right and fair...especially for the victims.

Paul also makes some very good points in his list of "Several things have gone wrong."

Parents, teachers, school administrators, etc are all afraid of being sued if they disciplined lil Johnny or Mary or Jason. or whoever.

If ya can't make the grade and score good on the tests, not to worry, we'll lower the standards and make the test easier. We'll even "adjust" the acceptance level by adding "credit points" for you personally and your situation. [puke]

What that you say? You killed that old lady because she reminded you of your mom who spanked you when you were 12. Not to worry, we'll get you off and put your mom in jail for child abuse. [Mad]

Gosh, I don't know what else to say… Hmmmm, that's a 1st, huh? [Big Grin]

>>> Phil

Posted by Mike Pennell (Member # 1692) on 05-23-2003, 05:17 AM:

Give me a fu*%ing break. William thats the biggest pile of [bs]

ive heard in a long time. oooh these kids have it harder than we did. BUNK BUNK BUNK Im 31 and these jackasses who say they've got it rough usually make it rough on themselves.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-23-2003, 05:31 AM:

My life was fairly cozy I suppose, though I did have many troubles in school and peer pressure and all the usual stuff. Not sure how it would be "harder" today though. I would like to hear examples.

Posted by Mike Pennell (Member # 1692) on 05-23-2003, 05:39 AM:

I'm sorry, I didnt intend on it offending anyone directly, just my personal opinion and not intentionally pointed at anyone. I just had to listen to my 16yr old niece tell me today how "hard" it is to be young and i nearly died laughing [beer]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-23-2003, 09:54 AM:

Paul,

I don't want to stray too far here but as to the case you cited...There has always been a issue with once law-enforcement breaks the law while gathering evidence. That is, illegal wire-taps or other forms.

No one wants evidence to be dismissed that would lead to convicting an actual criminal but we can't allow law-enforcement to let the ends justify the means. Of the two, I'll take what the judge did in the case you cited.

The seat-belt law is crap, the government has no business inside your car in that manner...I firmly don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect you from yourself.

Taken to the "primary offense" status is beyond stupid. So now all a cop as to do is say they saw you or any occupant without their seatbelt on and then they get to do a full car search? Note I said that all the cop as to do is say they saw one person with their seatbelt off...the cop can easily claim you put it on while the walked up to the vehicle (in the courts, it is always presumed that the cop is telling the truth..I've sat on those juries).

The right to privacy from the government should extend beyond the house and right though to the car and all forms of property. If the police want to search it, get a warrant. When I was growing up, the police didn't have the power to search the car. They couldn't even assign possession to something they saw unless you could reach it from your seated position. Amazingly enough, society didn't come to a grinding halt then either.

Steve

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 05-23-2003, 12:34 PM:

quote:
Let me get this straight....nobody really dances at the prom, most of the kids aren't even listening to what you are playing or enjoying it. You wonder why you could only get $350?

One thing I noticed that changed for the kids shortly after my graduation (early '80s)...when we had dances (from Jr. High onwards) the music was LIVE not DJ. Real live bands played at the dances and such. I believe the prom was a DJ though (didn't go) since the music wasn't the important thing.

I was relating the experience of the last prom I worked, not all of them. It really depended upon which side of town we played. Kids on one side of the county would act completely different than those on the other. Kids in the rural areas treated us like freakin' rock stars. I always sold our services to our clients as "Entertainers" rather than just a button pushing Radio Shack warrior. Not many weekend warriors could pack in the sound and lighting rig we did, provide a team of dancers to motivate the crowds, line dance instruction, Karaoke services, etc. There is a big difference between $350.00 and $1,200.00 as far as the level of service we had the ability to provide. The schools were just not willing to pay for true entertainment.

The $350.00 thing is an insult to a "professional DJ"... and yes there are such things as professional mobile DJ's. If I could have found enough reliable help who expressed any type of showmanship, I could've made a really good living just by playing the Wedding and Bar/Bat Mizvah circuits with no other source of income. I have friends in the Nashville market working as mobile DJ's as their only job and pull in over $100k a year by running multiple systems. Quitting the prom circuit was purely a business decision. Why would you take a $350.00 job where the majority of the music requested was so vulgar we were banned from playing it by the faculty, when on the same night you could be at a really nice country club playing a wedding or other event for almost 3 times the money? Sure we dealt with some drunks at the weddings, but nothing out of the ordinary.

I do agree with Steve about the "live band" issue. Even working as a DJ for 18 years, I would personally rather have a live band at my event as opposed to a run of the mill DJ. Nothing beats a really good band who has a diverse range of musical ability, and provides the entertainment and showmanship to effectively work a crowd.

My view of teenagers has not been tainted by my experience with that one run-in at that prom. There are great examples of good kids at our church that show that not all teenagers are gun-totin' thugs.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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 [bs]

, 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..... [Smile]

[ 05-23-2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 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! [Frown]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-23-2003, 02:21 PM:

Sounds like you have some great kids, Jack. I am happy for you. [Smile]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-23-2003, 04:57 PM:

Steve is on target about the government sticking it's collective noses into our private lives. The [bs]

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

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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 [fu]

the rest of the people. [Mad]

I will stand to my convictions.

It is a matter of responsibility to yourselves as well as others.

I started another thread on seatbelts.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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. [Wink]

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. [Wink]

As I said before, I don't think the law is stupid at all. [Smile]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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. [Confused]

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-23-2003, 10:01 PM:

I give up.... you just don't get it...

>>> Phil

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-23-2003, 10:11 PM:

I was wearing my seat belts LONG before it became the LAW.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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. [Smile]

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". [Big Grin]

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. [Wink]

[ 05-24-2003, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]