Jump to content



Photo

shooting over speeding


  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#1 Woodslover

Woodslover

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 09:22 AM

Anyone catch the story on wave 3?  Lakeview Drive in Charlestown, actually closer to New Washington.  A little cut through road that people often speed down taking a short cut from Hibernia road to State Road 62.  People have complained in the past of speeders on this street, which is home to several small kids and elderly.

 

  One resident took matters into his own hands on confronted one of the speeders. This lead to a fist fight, a gun being pulled and shots fired.  One bullet hit the speeders vehicle.

 

 

  What will it take to fix this?

 

  Will someone get shot before anyone does anything?


Edited by Woodslover, 18 March 2015 - 09:22 AM.


#2 Woodslover

Woodslover

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 02:50 PM

Any thoughts on this?



#3 karen

karen

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 929 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 08:39 PM

They should add the huge speed bumps like they have all over Jeff.  


  • Russell Brooksbank likes this

#4 Woodslover

Woodslover

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 07:56 AM

I was thinking the same thing Karen.  I wonder what  steps one must take to get this dine?  I believe this is a county road, definitely out of city limits.



#5 Woodslover

Woodslover

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 25 March 2015 - 09:11 AM

A little digging shows that the man who started this confrontation is a convicted felon.  His stepson who lives in the house was the one with the gun who shot at the car.

 

  Now, if a convicted felon has a gun in their home, isn't that a crime, and shouldn't the felon be charged?

 

 This felon, who is in his 50's got in  a fight with the driver who is 20.  One of this felons charges is for assault on a minor under the age of 14.  So this felon likes to beat up people smaller and younger than he.



#6 dawizzy1

dawizzy1

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 17 May 2015 - 11:09 AM

I live on Hibernia Rd. People drive on Hibernia like it's the interstate. I have called the sheriff's office and asked for increased patrols but have not noticed any so far. I even went as far to tell them they could back into my driveway and run radar. Law enforcement needs to get a handle on this before somebody gets run over.



#7 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 05:48 AM

I have a question. If someone is going above the posted speed limit whose rights are they violating?
  • Debbie likes this

#8 Dave

Dave

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 08:49 AM

I have a question. If someone is going above the posted speed limit whose rights are they violating?

 

I know! Nobody's! Oh wait, was that a rhetorical question? Since when do traffic violations have anything to do with the rights of others?



#9 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,169 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:03 PM

Maybe I don't understand this rights stuff, but if a car that is speeding, running stop signs, etc. hits me in my car or one of my grandkids walking, hasn't our right to safety been violated? Who judges whether your right to speed is greater than our right to safety?


  • Russell Brooksbank likes this

#10 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:22 PM

DonnaK, that's exactly right. If someone is speeding and runs into you then your rights were violated and they should be made to make you whole. That would be a proper job of government. If someone is speeding and doesn't run into you then they did not violate your rights and as such government should not get involved.

#11 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:24 PM

I know! Nobody's! Oh wait, was that a rhetorical question? Since when do traffic violations have anything to do with the rights of others?

They don't. It's a profit center for the city and nothing more.

#12 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,169 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:32 PM

Once my rights have been violated, once I have been injured, how would the government insure that I be made whole again?



#13 Dave

Dave

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:33 PM

They don't. It's a profit center for the city and nothing more.

 

+1 The existence of speed limits violates the right of no one. The enforcement of speed limits is in many cases an egregious abuse of local power.



#14 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 03:13 PM

Once my rights have been violated, once I have been injured, how would the government insure that I be made whole again?

By arresting the offender, putting him in jail and operating a court where you can sue and have the offender made to pay you restitution. The person would pay you for his violation of your rights either with the loss of his freedom for a specific period of time or the forfeiture of his assets (liquidated and paid to you not the state) or both. Being made whole is a legal term. It means to pay or award damages sufficient to put the party who was damaged back into the position he/she would have been without the fault of another.

#15 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 03:23 PM

+1 The existence of speed limits violates the right of no one. The enforcement of speed limits is in many cases an egregious abuse of local power.

The existence of suggested speed limits violates the rights of no one, but the ticketing of going beyond that speed limit while no person's rights are being violated does violate someone's rights. Now, we could say that if a person were to have an accident while going over the suggested speed limit then they would warrant a harsher punishment than if they were going under the suggested speed limit.

#16 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 04:10 PM

Do we have a right to safety?
  • Debbie likes this

#17 dawizzy1

dawizzy1

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 21 May 2015 - 01:33 AM

Do we have a right to safety?

You have a right to be "secure in your person". This is why endangerment and wanton endangerment are crimes. If you are going 60 mph down Hibernia Rd, you are endangering the lives and safety of those around you. So, yes, you have a right to be safe from someone else's wanton behavior.



#18 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 21 May 2015 - 05:41 AM

Being secure IN your person has nothing to do with having a right to not be in danger, but everything to do with having a right to not be affected by someone else's behavior. Your rights are violated only after your person has been violated. Life is dangerous. I do not have the right to demand that it be bubble wrapped.
  • Debbie likes this

#19 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 21 May 2015 - 05:46 AM

Anytime you get in a vehicle you are endangering the lives of you and others. I think we'll make it illegal for people to leave their house and endanger others. You could trip and fall into someone. You could sneeze on someone. You could say something that damages their psyche.....
  • Debbie likes this

#20 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 21 May 2015 - 05:46 AM

DonnaK, that's exactly right. If someone is speeding and runs into you then your rights were violated and they should be made to make you whole. That would be a proper job of government. If someone is speeding and doesn't run into you then they did not violate your rights and as such government should not get involved.

So....

Following your line of reasoning, drunk driving is okay if you make it home safe?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users