Betcha mommy owns the car, has the insurance in her name and Joe is not listed as a driver. The insurance company didn’t know he was driving until now…
Had a friend from Paris. She had 14 accidents in one year. One involved hitting an elderly woman with her car. She went to see the lady in the hospital and the woman screamed and cursed at her to get out. Some people need to take the bus.
Finally, somebody did the research I was too lazy to do. Ex post facto = after the fact. Not supposed to happen but this new law is ignoring that. Yes, this idiot should be off the road. Yes, why wait until his next violation kills someone. But no, not at the expense of ignoring the laws that founded this country. Another case of “great idea, but not in my backyard”.
Technically, this is not an [i]ex post facto[/i] law. Mr. Dehetre’s loss of his driving privileges is a punishment only for the most recent infraction. The new law merely allows previous infractions to be taken into account when setting the penalty for the current infraction. It is not punishing him again for the prior infractions.
Had Mr. Dehetre not committed any more offenses, he would not have been penalized by the new law. Under an ex post facto law, the police would have just come to his door and yanked his license away the second the law passed, even with no new infractions.
Of course, the penalty is likely to be appealed. People have a tendency to do such things, especially where new criminal law is concerned.
that his fellow citizens don’t want him on the road. Simple as that. I don’t think he’s getting it on a conceptual basis. Joe, a majority made some laws, altogether too liberal to begin with. For those who are so out-of-it that they refuse to obey even these loose parameters, too bad. Walk a while, then try it again. Those same citizens have thoughtfully provided public transportation for slow learners like you. They have even paid for most of it just so guys like you have no need to be a vehicle operator. ‘Hey Joe, where you goin with that bus pass in your hand?’
Whether or not it fits the “ex post facto” definition, it seems close enough that it should not be condoned. There are two ways to lose a free society. The first way is from brute force, i.e. another country conquers us. The second way is it creeps in slowly, like boiling a frog. Every great nation in history has come to an end. For America not to do the same would be highly unlikely and would defy all history of humanity. Little laws here and there that are meant to “protect” will ultimately cause a downfall. It is part of a growing problem in America. Everyone wants someone else to take care of them, instead of taking care of themselves. What are you left with? A society of useless wimps and civil strife. And thus the downfall.
What about the drivers that cause deadly accidents but have no moving violations? Should we banish them from the streets? Hey! I have an idea. Lets make it ILLEGAL for anyone to drive! That way everyone will be safe from the big bad scarry drivers.
Now theres a concept Joe would really have trouble wrapping his brain around.
From the current situation whereby anyone with car keys can drive freely, regardless of license, insurance or previous driving history, to one where no one can drive? Joe will never understand that kind of swing. Too bad we don’t already have laws on the books that regulate those who cannot handle the responsibility. Laws that are there because we elected folks to do our lawmaking on our behalf. Folks who evolved a set of codes and statutes based on whats best for our given community. We do, you say? They just are not adhered to. Why, all thats too much for Joe. He just wants to drive how he wants, when he wants, where he wants, and we should just let him. Don’t you think?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Only if we don’t allow them to wear a helmet.
Betcha mommy owns the car, has the insurance in her name and Joe is not listed as a driver. The insurance company didn’t know he was driving until now…
Had a friend from Paris. She had 14 accidents in one year. One involved hitting an elderly woman with her car. She went to see the lady in the hospital and the woman screamed and cursed at her to get out. Some people need to take the bus.
Finally, somebody did the research I was too lazy to do. Ex post facto = after the fact. Not supposed to happen but this new law is ignoring that. Yes, this idiot should be off the road. Yes, why wait until his next violation kills someone. But no, not at the expense of ignoring the laws that founded this country. Another case of “great idea, but not in my backyard”.
Technically, this is not an [i]ex post facto[/i] law. Mr. Dehetre’s loss of his driving privileges is a punishment only for the most recent infraction. The new law merely allows previous infractions to be taken into account when setting the penalty for the current infraction. It is not punishing him again for the prior infractions.
Had Mr. Dehetre not committed any more offenses, he would not have been penalized by the new law. Under an ex post facto law, the police would have just come to his door and yanked his license away the second the law passed, even with no new infractions.
Of course, the penalty is likely to be appealed. People have a tendency to do such things, especially where new criminal law is concerned.
that his fellow citizens don’t want him on the road. Simple as that. I don’t think he’s getting it on a conceptual basis. Joe, a majority made some laws, altogether too liberal to begin with. For those who are so out-of-it that they refuse to obey even these loose parameters, too bad. Walk a while, then try it again. Those same citizens have thoughtfully provided public transportation for slow learners like you. They have even paid for most of it just so guys like you have no need to be a vehicle operator. ‘Hey Joe, where you goin with that bus pass in your hand?’
Whether or not it fits the “ex post facto” definition, it seems close enough that it should not be condoned. There are two ways to lose a free society. The first way is from brute force, i.e. another country conquers us. The second way is it creeps in slowly, like boiling a frog. Every great nation in history has come to an end. For America not to do the same would be highly unlikely and would defy all history of humanity. Little laws here and there that are meant to “protect” will ultimately cause a downfall. It is part of a growing problem in America. Everyone wants someone else to take care of them, instead of taking care of themselves. What are you left with? A society of useless wimps and civil strife. And thus the downfall.
What about the drivers that cause deadly accidents but have no moving violations? Should we banish them from the streets? Hey! I have an idea. Lets make it ILLEGAL for anyone to drive! That way everyone will be safe from the big bad scarry drivers.
Now theres a concept Joe would really have trouble wrapping his brain around.
From the current situation whereby anyone with car keys can drive freely, regardless of license, insurance or previous driving history, to one where no one can drive? Joe will never understand that kind of swing. Too bad we don’t already have laws on the books that regulate those who cannot handle the responsibility. Laws that are there because we elected folks to do our lawmaking on our behalf. Folks who evolved a set of codes and statutes based on whats best for our given community. We do, you say? They just are not adhered to. Why, all thats too much for Joe. He just wants to drive how he wants, when he wants, where he wants, and we should just let him. Don’t you think?
Disclaimer: No frogs were harmed in the writing or reading of this article and / or posting of comments.