I just wish there were a way to forward all of these comments to Joe’s mommy, so she could read to him about all of the love and support he is generating
“Everybody you talk to, it’s double-dipping,” Alison Dehetre said, noting that her son already paid more than $3,000 in fines, lost his license several times and spent four days in jail for his driving convictions.
I’ve said it for years and will continue to proclaim — obtaining a drivers license is a privilege NOT a right. If insurance agents or doctors or lawyers mis-use/abuse their positions of trust, they too can loose thier licenses as well!
Did I go to sleep and wakeup in Russia or maybe China? You sound like Bill Clinton. “That depends on what the definition if is, is.” Of course this law is retroactive or ex post facto. Read your copy of the Federalist Papers. The intent of the framers of the constitution was to, not punish people unfairly for past deeds that were not a violation of the new law at the time the deed was done. Slick legislators and even slickler lawyers have brain washed the public into believing that the government can protect them. Driving is not a privilege it is a right of all citizens who are capable and agree to follow the rules of the road. No one citizen can be granted a legal advantage over another by our government. Therefore, driving cannot be a privilege;something easily revoked at the whim of a government bureaucrat.
Wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said he who will surrender his freedon for security, will have neither freedom nor security.
This young man went 15 months without a citation. He did not injure anyone or damage any property. This impresses me as someone possibly trying to improve his behavior. How do any of you know he actually ran the stop sign. You are assuming that the cops are infallable. Sounds like socialism to me. All of you nay sayers and “slick willies” better hope none of your past transgressions become illegal.
Of course this should be retroactive, why wait another five years to get these guys off our streets? By then they might kill me or one of my family members. As for the government being over protective, I don’t buy it. I should be able to safely operate my motor vehicle without having to worry about some moron who can’t operate his. The alternative is we take the law into our own hands, and that is called road rage, which none of us want. Don’t put this guy on two wheels either, that is too soft. In fact I think these guys ought to be barred from anything with a motor including public transportation, let em take the shoe leather express for 3 years. If they get one violation in the 12 mionth period after that three years, give em three more. Must just be pure greed that anyone would insure these idiots, can’t be any underwriting going on there.
Let’s see: He has had 10 – now 11 chargable offenses in less than 5 years. He has paid over $3000 in fines – lost his license several times and spent 4 days in jail. It appears that maybe someone needs to stop picking-up after him before he ends-up killing some poor individual who didn’t realize this guy thinks he is above the law.
All these complaints are way off the mark. This law is not retroactive or ex post facto. No one has had their license revoked without being convicted of new violations after the law was passed.
If the law were retroactive, people would be losing their licenses over past violations, without any need to commit further crimes against the motoring public. Instead, they must commit a new offense, and be convicted of that new offense, after the law was in force.
My only question would be why the limit was set so high. By the time you’ve been caught, ticketed, and convicted ten times, how many other offenses have you gotten away with because no police officer saw you?
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.
So you think we should be taking care of bad drivers ourselves, rather than leaving it to the government?
I’ll confess, when I was hit by an uninsured driver without a license, I was tempted to take care of her myself, but that’s not what we do in a civilized society.
How, exactly, do you suggest other motorists “take care of themselves” with habitual traffic criminals?
The only thing I can figure is that you are trying to bait folks into an argument, ’cause you certainly can’t believe what you just wrote. However, you may be a conspiracy theorist.
Let’s look, shall we. You write, “The intent of the framers of the constitution was to, not punish people unfairly for past deeds that were not a violation of the new law at the time the deed was done.” And you are right – however, his actions were illegal when they were committed – the penalty changed – and no it’s not ex post facto as they did not hunt him down and take his license, just past infractions counted towards the calculation in the application of the new law – you’re slate doesn’t get whiped clean.
Driving is not a right – you must obey the law. At best, in defense of your position, it is a right with responsibilities; and this guy shirked his responsibilities. A right is something guaranteed – if you don’t have a car, I guess society must buy you one since it’s a “right” to drive. That sounds more like socialism.
Let’s see – 15 months without a citation – the police are fallable – they didn’t catch him for 15 months.
His past sins didn’t become illegal – they always were (else he wouldn’t have gotten tickets, etc).
Ever heard of a “Prayer for Judgement” (PJC)? In many states, if you receive a PJC the citation is, in a sense, invisible; however, if another ticket is received in a certain amount of time, that ticket is revived and counts against you. Is that retroactive judgement? No, the violator was given the opportunity to mend his ways, but if he doesn’t – he receives the punishment due. Same with this guy.
Sure….everyone makes mistakes and the police are fallible….but that is why the limit was set at 10. That is an awful lot of citations to get. This guy is either a horribly bad driver, or continually disregards the law…either way the state has an obligation to remove him from the road. We would all expect the state to fill a dangerous pot-hole, or fix a malfunctioning traffic light to keep the roads safe…..removing this guy from the roads is the same thing. If the points on his license, past fines, jail time, and loss of license in the past didn’t get him to change his ways, the punishments need to be stepped up and this seems like a good way to do it.
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.
I just wish there were a way to forward all of these comments to Joe’s mommy, so she could read to him about all of the love and support he is generating
All this and the man STILL does not have a clue:
“Everybody you talk to, it’s double-dipping,” Alison Dehetre said, noting that her son already paid more than $3,000 in fines, lost his license several times and spent four days in jail for his driving convictions.
I’ve said it for years and will continue to proclaim — obtaining a drivers license is a privilege NOT a right. If insurance agents or doctors or lawyers mis-use/abuse their positions of trust, they too can loose thier licenses as well!
Did I go to sleep and wakeup in Russia or maybe China? You sound like Bill Clinton. “That depends on what the definition if is, is.” Of course this law is retroactive or ex post facto. Read your copy of the Federalist Papers. The intent of the framers of the constitution was to, not punish people unfairly for past deeds that were not a violation of the new law at the time the deed was done. Slick legislators and even slickler lawyers have brain washed the public into believing that the government can protect them. Driving is not a privilege it is a right of all citizens who are capable and agree to follow the rules of the road. No one citizen can be granted a legal advantage over another by our government. Therefore, driving cannot be a privilege;something easily revoked at the whim of a government bureaucrat.
Wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said he who will surrender his freedon for security, will have neither freedom nor security.
This young man went 15 months without a citation. He did not injure anyone or damage any property. This impresses me as someone possibly trying to improve his behavior. How do any of you know he actually ran the stop sign. You are assuming that the cops are infallable. Sounds like socialism to me. All of you nay sayers and “slick willies” better hope none of your past transgressions become illegal.
Of course this should be retroactive, why wait another five years to get these guys off our streets? By then they might kill me or one of my family members. As for the government being over protective, I don’t buy it. I should be able to safely operate my motor vehicle without having to worry about some moron who can’t operate his. The alternative is we take the law into our own hands, and that is called road rage, which none of us want. Don’t put this guy on two wheels either, that is too soft. In fact I think these guys ought to be barred from anything with a motor including public transportation, let em take the shoe leather express for 3 years. If they get one violation in the 12 mionth period after that three years, give em three more. Must just be pure greed that anyone would insure these idiots, can’t be any underwriting going on there.
Let’s see: He has had 10 – now 11 chargable offenses in less than 5 years. He has paid over $3000 in fines – lost his license several times and spent 4 days in jail. It appears that maybe someone needs to stop picking-up after him before he ends-up killing some poor individual who didn’t realize this guy thinks he is above the law.
All these complaints are way off the mark. This law is not retroactive or ex post facto. No one has had their license revoked without being convicted of new violations after the law was passed.
If the law were retroactive, people would be losing their licenses over past violations, without any need to commit further crimes against the motoring public. Instead, they must commit a new offense, and be convicted of that new offense, after the law was in force.
My only question would be why the limit was set so high. By the time you’ve been caught, ticketed, and convicted ten times, how many other offenses have you gotten away with because no police officer saw you?
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.
So you think we should be taking care of bad drivers ourselves, rather than leaving it to the government?
I’ll confess, when I was hit by an uninsured driver without a license, I was tempted to take care of her myself, but that’s not what we do in a civilized society.
How, exactly, do you suggest other motorists “take care of themselves” with habitual traffic criminals?
Charles,
The only thing I can figure is that you are trying to bait folks into an argument, ’cause you certainly can’t believe what you just wrote. However, you may be a conspiracy theorist.
Let’s look, shall we. You write, “The intent of the framers of the constitution was to, not punish people unfairly for past deeds that were not a violation of the new law at the time the deed was done.” And you are right – however, his actions were illegal when they were committed – the penalty changed – and no it’s not ex post facto as they did not hunt him down and take his license, just past infractions counted towards the calculation in the application of the new law – you’re slate doesn’t get whiped clean.
Driving is not a right – you must obey the law. At best, in defense of your position, it is a right with responsibilities; and this guy shirked his responsibilities. A right is something guaranteed – if you don’t have a car, I guess society must buy you one since it’s a “right” to drive. That sounds more like socialism.
Let’s see – 15 months without a citation – the police are fallable – they didn’t catch him for 15 months.
His past sins didn’t become illegal – they always were (else he wouldn’t have gotten tickets, etc).
Ever heard of a “Prayer for Judgement” (PJC)? In many states, if you receive a PJC the citation is, in a sense, invisible; however, if another ticket is received in a certain amount of time, that ticket is revived and counts against you. Is that retroactive judgement? No, the violator was given the opportunity to mend his ways, but if he doesn’t – he receives the punishment due. Same with this guy.
Sure….everyone makes mistakes and the police are fallible….but that is why the limit was set at 10. That is an awful lot of citations to get. This guy is either a horribly bad driver, or continually disregards the law…either way the state has an obligation to remove him from the road. We would all expect the state to fill a dangerous pot-hole, or fix a malfunctioning traffic light to keep the roads safe…..removing this guy from the roads is the same thing. If the points on his license, past fines, jail time, and loss of license in the past didn’t get him to change his ways, the punishments need to be stepped up and this seems like a good way to do it.