Shakopee Valley News - Police and Courts - Comments

Thanks! I will. And one

kidjon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:31:41 -0600

Thanks! I will. And one correction, it is 6 beers and not 10. I don't want any vicious rumors started about me being an alcoholic. I have good news for you, I actually wrote someone a ticket for talking on his cell phone while driving. The dumb ****** made an illegal left turn. So, maybe you are changing my opinion about cell phones. I believe that DUI enforcements are about safety, they make an impact by taking intoxicated drivers off the road. Having officers peek into your car at night while you are at a red light to see if you have your seatbelt on is not about safety, it is revenue enhancement. Just like those red light cameras that are going up around the country under the guise of safety. It is revenue enhancement. What happens when the operational cost of the cameras is more than what the city brings in on red light tickets? They pull out the camera, or they start citing people for Fail to Signal, Expired License Plates etc. However, they do cause many rear end accidents at intersections where these cameras are placed. Good times.

Okay - I wasn't going to

ilikelakes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:07:24 -0600

Okay - I wasn't going to bite, but couldn't resist. I will admit your previous comment got my blood pressure up a bit, but I'm perfectly mellow now. You talk about freedom, which is what makes our country the greatest. We are free to air our opinions, protest and criticize our government and its leaders. We are free to engage in behaviors that could personally harm us as long as harm is not caused to society and its members. So, if you want to sit in your armchair and quaff 10 beers while watching Glen Beck, that's perfectly fine as long as you don't beat your wife and kids in a drunken rage or leave the confines of your home and get behind the wheel. If you had read the article I referred to, you would have learned that research has shown that driving while using a cell phone is equivalent to driving while under the influence of alcohol.

What I have an issue with is when someone spouts an opinion and states it as fact. For instance, you wrote: "these seatbelt enforcements that are conducted across the country are not about safety, but revenue collection." Can you please provide some hard evidence to support that "fact"? I doubt it, but if you do, I will humbly apologize.

You have a nice weekend and Happy Thanksgiving as well. May God watch over you as you cruise merrily on your motorcycle with the wind rushing through your mane with the hope that a distracted driver on their cell phone doesn't plow into you as they did to me.

Pretty slow news days.

Rowland — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:46:25 -0600

Pretty slow news days. Actually this is five days old now.

Why is this news? Why are these poors people's names published. It is not legal to sell alcohol to minors - with “criminal penalties of a maximum of one year in jail and/or a $3,000 fine” which makes it pretty severe transgression.

Poor form. I agree - to waive the wrist ban requirement for entry to the beer tent on one hand and then to not even know how to look at (or care to properly check) an ID for age on the other is very poor form indeed.

Pretty slow news days. Why

kokr9901 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:27:14 -0600

Pretty slow news days. Why is this news? Why are these poors people's names published. Poor form.

What a creep. No surprise he

kidjon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:50:50 -0600

What a creep. No surprise he is on parole. He is a parents worst nightmare.

No crabiness on this end. I

kidjon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:38:54 -0600

No crabiness on this end. I am having a great day. You seem to be angry and bitter in your comments. Kinda funny when it appears that you and I agree on most of the topic we are talking about. Don't let anger get to you, it will only eat you up. Well, have a good day and a Happy Thanksgiving. Also, remember that God loves you.

Hey Kidjon, "Worn Out" or

ilikelakes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:25:12 -0600

Hey Kidjon, "Worn Out" or whatever you call yourself. Please read the article I referred to before spewing more mindless b.s. You still don't get the point of my post. Sure, if you want to smoke, go ahead. Just don't do it it where I might dine or shop, or work. If you want to ride your motor cycle or bicycle without a helmet, go ahead. The point is: if you engage in an activity that harms yourself ONLY, go ahead. If you engage in an activity that harms the general public, it should be banned. Public Safety is where the Government should be involved, and as a so-called law-enforcement official,I would think you would understand. The point is: do not engage in any activity that can harm yourself or the GENERAL PUBLIC!!!! Have a nice day there in Washington State. I know you've been having horrible weather there. Maybe that's why you're crabby.

I don't recall in my posts

kidjon — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:46:07 -0600

I don't recall in my posts about this subject that I was in law enforcement. Anyway, I think you and I agree on living in a "nanny state". I think we are in the majority. As far as cell phone laws, I guess we will agree to disagree. As far as the definition, I think you are splitting hairs. I believe over bearing and over reaching can be added to the definition (cradle to grave government run healthcare can fall under nanny state). Now, going back to the original story, these seatbelt enforcements that are conducted across the country are not about safety, but revenue collection. Personally, if i want to get on a motorcycle without a helmet and drive with the wind thru my hair, I should be able to do that without being harassed by "The Man" and face getting a ticket. If I want to undo my seatbelt because it is uncomfortable, I should be ablt to do that without having "The Man" peek into my car to check out my behavior. All under the guise of "safety" and using the excuse of costing tax payers money if I get in an accident. I have insurance and what insurance doesn't pay, I have the financial means to pay the rest of the medical bills. It is about freedom.

Kidjon, Having never heard

ilikelakes — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:34:20 -0600

Kidjon,

Having never heard the term "nanny state law" until your post, I decided to look it up. According to an on-line dictionary it is: a law imposed by "government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations." Based upon this, I beg to differ with your statement that these laws "protect you from yourself." Unless you've been living in a cave, there have been many recent findings about the dangers of cell phone use while driving. This has been all over the media. It's not just texting, but speaking on a cell phone - even if it's a hand's free device. You have stated that you are in the law-enforcement profession. I find it surprising that you say "I just think the cell phone laws are passed for emotional reasons and not based in statistics." If you don't believe me, please refer to this article in Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1916291,00.html. I was rear-ended by a girl texting and ended up in a Level I Trauma Center for four days. I'm lucky to be alive. So, obviously this is an issue near and dear to my heart, and my name's not Todd.

We need to imprison people

Detoxer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:05:12 -0600

We need to imprison people who deal drugs but we need to stop the source of these drugs--corrupt drug companies and doctors.

OxyContin is legal heroin--interchangeable with heroin.

Read the comments at www.banoxycontin.com.

Steve
http://novusdetox.com

okay, Todd, I mean,

kidjon — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:20:48 -0600

okay, Todd, I mean, ilikelakes. Talking on the cellphone is like talking to someone in your car. It is the act of talking which is the distraction, not having a phone up to yout ear. Hands free devices are just as distracting. So, I do not like cell phone laws either. "nanny state laws" by definition, are laws that protect you from yourself. So, the cell phone laws don't fall under "nanny state laws". I just think the cell phone laws are passed for emotional reasons and not based in statistics. So, to sum up your post, you really do agree with me about seatbelt laws and seatbelt enforcement. Thank you for your support, Todd, I mean ilikelakes.

Huh? I can understand how

ilikelakes — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:05:51 -0600

Huh? I can understand how someone might not like "nanny" laws that might infringe on one's personal rights, such as choosing to drive without buckling up. I kind of agree with that. If a person is too dumb or fat to strap a seat belt on, then it's their choice. Similarly, is someone chooses not to wear a helmet while motor-cycling or biking, that's also their choice. These choices involve risk to the person making them. However, "nanny" laws that protect others' health and well-being I am all for. Such as: banning smoking in public places. Question for you: what do you think of banning the use of cell phones while driving?

We didn't realize it either

Pat Minelli — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:41:31 -0600

We didn't realize it either ... it just did it on its own. Have to check on that ...

I didn't realize the Shako

kidjon — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:05 -0600

I didn't realize the Shako News would censor that word I used. I should have used "safety lemmings" instead of "safety nazis" (a term used for German soldiers in WW2, the big one).

Yea! And all the safety

kidjon — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:46:15 -0600

Yea! And all the safety ****** cheered. The State just got tens of thousands dollars in new monies. I am sure the money received from these tickets are directed into a fund specifically designed to pay for medical costs of drivers and passengers that were not seat belted during accidents. Wait. What? They weren't directed into a fund like that? Oh, I thought the reason for nanny state laws like this was because tax payers were paying for medical costs of people not wearing seatbelts at the time of an accident. I guess these funds will go into the general fund which picks up the costs of illegal alien medical bills and self esteem training for one legged lesbian prostitutes.