What? Racist Seat Belts?
Yeah, I'm back, thanks for kicking the corpse, still alive...
Ummm, what the F? NAACP is lobbying against a seat belt law that would allow the police to pull you over for not wearing one. Okay?
I understand that the NAACP is thinking and saying that, hey, police could use that law to pull over minority drivers to harass them or try to find them doing something wrong. I can also see the logic in not allowing them to pull you over for not wearing a seat belt gives them one less excuse for making unwarranted harassing stops.
But does the NAACP not think wearing your seat belt should be inforced? No, I know they aren't, but this seems a little silly to me. You should be wearing your seatbelt. Why aren't you wearing your seatbelt? And I'm sure the law would be optional for the officer and then we would get some statistics telling us more minorities were stopped for not wearing their seatbelts than white folks. And no one wants that, but come on, if you're wearing your seatbelt what's the fuss. It's like saying, you can't inforce on law to protect against another? I don't know, it just sounds like an awkward cause...
This was not what I intended to post, but that's what came out cause I just read it... hmmmmm... still not back in the groove...
Comments
Gentle correction: I believe the word you were looking for is "enforce."
(also, from an earlier post: one "cops" an attitude, not "copt")
Sorry to be the spelling police. I just figure that if bloggers really are going to replace professional journalists (see the Brummett fracas), they should at least try to uphold standards of the English language.
Posted by: Neuroglider![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/confidential/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 18, 2009 11:12 AM
Mr Ricky, you've got to help... The powers that be at this very website don't wanr me to vote in the best of arkansas poll... surely, there's something you can do?!?!?!
Posted by: Alejandro![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/confidential/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 31, 2009 06:18 PM
Why have a seat belt law at all ? Do we not believe in personal freedoms anymore? Our forefathers made a statement that is still very true today,"A person that trades freedom for security deserves neither".
Posted by: fcs25![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/confidential/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 26, 2009 07:50 AM
I disagree with the new seat belt law.
First, how in the world is a police officer going to be able to tell if I am wearing my seatbelt or not? There have been times that I have been pulled over and as soon as I am stopped on the side of the road, I instinctively remove my seatbelt! (only to freak-out and put it back on before the officer approaches me window)
It just doesn't seem plausible that an officer can tell whether or not a person is wearing a seatbelt.not to mention that I often put the shoulder strap under my arm.are they going to pull me over for that too!
I agree with the NAACP in that the seatbelt law will ultimately lead to more racial profiling and will be used as an excuse to pull ANYONE over at their own discretion.
If the government is actually concerned with safety, then they would go after automakers and make it impossible for cars to be sold without those ever-annoying seatbelt reminder chimes. The seatbelt law is a law shrouded in "safety of citizens"...it will do nothing more than bring us one more step closer to a police state. Don't think so? Then how about this contradiction of concern for safety: why is it still legal for motorcyclist to ride without helmets?
Posted by: JustSaying![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/confidential/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 7, 2009 12:05 PM
Whoever wrote this should have met the axe of layoff '09, or maybe this is the result of it. Either way, learn to spell correctly (or at least use the spell checker built into everything on a computer), get a editor, get a clear argument and express it intelligently, otherwise you fail this noble paper.
On seat-belts, it is a issue of personal liberty and having the right to live or die any way you have deemed fit. We just don't need more things forced on citizens for their own good.
Posted by: B Man atjamminnet![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/confidential/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 18, 2009 02:10 AM