Last one to post...WINS!

-bZ-LongTrang1 said:
Update on my antipathy towards sideshows is this:

www.thedrive.com

California City Passes Bill to Permanently Seize Cars Caught in Sideshows

Losing your car for a lifetime doesn't seem like such a good deal for doing donuts in the middle of an intersection.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Losing your car for a lifetime doesn’t seem like such a good deal for doing donuts in the middle of an intersection.

A suburb of Los Angles will combat sideshows—or street takeovers—with some of the most stringent laws in the United States. Pico Rivera’s City Council on Tuesday initially passed a local ordinance allowing police to permanently confiscate vehicles used in illegal shows or street racing. Spectators within 500 feet of the sideshows can be fined up to $2,000 for watching the event (500 feet is about two city blocks), or even preparing for one. The new ordinance may become permanent in 30 days.

“This proposed ordinance and enforcement options will provide the City with additional tools to address the issue of illegal street takeovers, deter such activities, and ensure that the roadways in Pico Rivera remain safe for everyone,” Councilman John Garcia said in a statement. “By taking action, we are sending a strong message that illegal street takeovers will not be tolerated in Pico Rivera and that the safety and well-being of its residents and visitors are paramount to the City Council.”
Click to expand...
I feel that such a wide range of enforcement.. 500 feet.. would likely render this law unenforceable if not unconstitutional as a unlawful deprivation of freedom of assembly. But... just silly. an overly-broad law that is ineffective at achieving its purpose.

I am a car guy myself but punishing spectators is dumb, punishing the drivers ʷʰᵒ ᵍᵉᵗ ᶜᵃᵘᵍʰᵗ makes more sense. ( I wish the street takeover people would stop ruining the car scene. gives it a bad name and image. )
 
UnoDosi said:
I feel that such a wide range of enforcement.. 500 feet.. would likely render this law unenforceable if not unconstitutional as a unlawful deprivation of freedom of assembly. But... just silly. an overly-broad law that is ineffective at achieving its purpose.

I am a car guy myself but punishing spectators is dumb, punishing the drivers ʷʰᵒ ᵍᵉᵗ ᶜᵃᵘᵍʰᵗ makes more sense. ( I wish the street takeover people would stop ruining the car scene. gives it a bad name and image. )
Click to expand...
Nah, punish the spectators because they are complicit and a major component of the draw to show off how small one's penis is. Most narcissists wont bother to show up and show off if they will not be seen.
Your expensive car doesnt supersede my citizen's right to a safe roadway and a quiet night's sleep. Go race at the track or better yet, off the edge of the Grand Canyon. My nieces and nephews are playing outside.
 
I agree in part. Such a law is in theory good at reducing the amount of street takeovers, the issue comes from its capability to be abused. What is the difference between a spectator and someone that was merely walking to the store within the 500foot radius? It seems obvious to you and I but if it is *technically* within the officers authority then they can say "F you, tell the judge". The issue is how broad the scope is and its potential for misuse or even abuse. It is similar to loitering laws. What is the difference between walking, waiting or loitering? Seems obvious but to the citing/arresting officer it is "tell it to the judge, idiot".

do we want safe streets: yes. Do we want these morons to stop takeovers: yes. it is reasonable to make spectators that egg on the drivers liable:Sure. is the law clear on what defines a spectator vs a passerby: No.
 
Sabretooth-Ninja said:
Nah, punish the spectators because they are complicit and a major component of the draw to show off how small one's penis is. Most narcissists wont bother to show up and show off if they will not be seen.
Your expensive car doesnt supersede my citizen's right to a safe roadway and a quiet night's sleep. Go race at the track or better yet, off the edge of the Grand Canyon. My nieces and nephews are playing outside.
Click to expand...
See above reply. Lordtom just HAD to post a meme right as I was typing smh.
 
UnoDosi said:
I agree in part. Such a law is in theory good at reducing the amount of street takeovers, the issue comes from its capability to be abused. What is the difference between a spectator and someone that was merely walking to the store within the 500foot radius? It seems obvious to you and I but if it is *technically* within the officers authority then they can say "F you, tell the judge". The issue is how broad the scope is and its potential for misuse or even abuse. It is similar to loitering laws. What is the difference between walking, waiting or loitering? Seems obvious but to the citing/arresting officer it is "tell it to the judge, idiot".

do we want safe streets: yes. Do we want these morons to stop takeovers: yes. it is reasonable to make spectators that egg on the drivers liable:Sure. is the law clear on what defines a spectator vs a passerby: No.
Click to expand...
Fair points. Agreed, we can't rely on the police to teach people manners and respect. That starts and ends at home.
 
UnoDosi said:
What is the difference between a spectator and someone that was merely walking to the store within the 500foot radius?
Click to expand...

The bag of groceries or reusable grocery bags in one's hand would be a good indicator. Granted, a lot of cops are too fucking stupid to distinguish between a mob of black teenagers and the 75 year old Chinese lady going to buy bread. I can see this being a problem in some jurisdictions.
 
SP83nxQ.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top