Slashdot Mirror
Minnesota Supreme Court Rejects DUI Challenges Based On Buggy Software
bzzfzz writes "In a case with parallels to the Diebold Voting Machine fiasco, Minnesota's Supreme Court upheld the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN breath testing machine on a narrow 4-3 vote. Source code analysis during the six-year legal battle revealed a number of bugs that could potentially affect test results. Several thousand DUI cases that were waiting on the results of this appeal will now proceed. The ruling is one in a series of DUI-related court victories for police and prosecutors. Other recent cases upheld a conviction of a person with no evidence that the vehicle had been driven and convictions based solely on urine samples that may only show impairment hours before driving. The Intoxilyzer 5000EN is now considered obsolete, and replacement devices are being rolled out, with the last jurisdictions in the state scheduled to retire their 5000ENs by the end of the year."
We're the only state that can lock you up for life without a trial; all it takes is a judge to agree that there's a risk you could offend again. In other words, you serve your sentence, and then an unappealable, arbitrary decision, by one guy, can have you spend the rest of your life in jail. Our laws in this state are so bad that the European Union refuses to extradite people here in several cases. I am not surprised that they just basically crapped in the pool of civil rights and then shrugged and went on with their business.
We've convicted people of DUI for walking down the street. Seriously. It was upheld on the basis that he could have gotten in a motor vehicle, because he had his car keys on him. Bonus: The car didn't even run.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm of the mindset that even a little alcohol in your system should keep you off the road. Alcohol affects people in different ways, what may be fine for you isn't fine for me. If you wan to have a drink, don't plan on driving.
Lame frosty.
Also, fuck this sociopathy of a "justice system". There is no consistency. They did not throw out these convictions only to save on paperwork. They should have been thrown out.
Also, if everyone exercised their right to a fair trial, then this bullshit criminal legal system would collapse. You'd see a lot fewer trumped up charges and minor offenses would be handled far more sanely. This "justice system" is like an abusive parent with a loud and obnoxious toddler.
No, I have no interest in having drunks driving on our streets and doing even more harm to society than they already do, but application of law must not be arbitrary and capricious: it's the prosecution's job to show that the evidence is reliable "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the software does not meet that criterion then you don't have valid evidence, just as you don't have valid evidence if your "eye witness" wasn't there at the time.
PF
Hopefully, one day, you'll be incorrectly lumped in with a majority accused of a crime and someone in a position of power won't give a damn about your rights or freedoms.
If you smoke out and drive, what happens? You go 10mph under the speed limit and still miss your exit. Then you spend 15 minutes lost in a cloverleaf trying to turn around. Then you drive at 10mph under the limit and you STILL miss your exit, so you end up at a 7-11 getting some Soda pop and a sack of chips and chocolate bars but it's too hard to figure out the change, so you let the guy behind the counter do it, and then you pig out enough that your head clears long enough that you DON'T miss your exit and you end up watching Tim and Eric's Awesome Show Good Job! or Wonder Showzen reruns until you fall asleep in the barcalounger.
True story.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
As a minnesotan, I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted with this equipment truely were drunk.
So your argument is that someone should be wrongly convicted because a bunch of other people probably were guilty? I pray you never become a judge.
More likely...they didn't want to throw them out because of revenue loss.
They're not interested in making the roads safer, they're wanting to protect their revenue stream.
I'd be willing to bet, that if you took all the revenue from driving infractions, and pooled them, and maybe gave it all back to the citizens that did NOT incur any infractions...rather than give it to the cops, you'd see a huge drop in the vigor and ferocity of our 'safety' officials in setting up all these traps, and the system not caring much about how realistic, accurate and fair they are....
It is always a bad idea to allow those that can impose power over you, directly benefit monetarily from said actions.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Want to know why drunk driving is so endemic in the United States?
Here's a hint:
most bars in the US are in towns and suburbs where they are not served by public transit, AND, the are required to have parking spots for all their customers.
If ever there was a business that should be forbidden to have customer parking, it's a bar.
Of all the things about liquor laws in the US, this is the most insane.
Who knew they still made software for buggies?
Known bad device is the sole determiner of guilt/innocence, as its results cannot be challenged, and pending cases based on potentially bad evidence are allowed to go forward, with a bonus that the devices are still in use in some jurisdictions. WTH, Minnesota?
its not that hard.
drink at home.
get a designated driver
take a cab home or the bus or he train
if you're drunk and in your car and get caught i have no sympathy for you.
How did we come to a place where a judge can simply decide a machine, which has been proven unreliable, is in fact reliable? How will these people sleep at night knowing they are punishing people who were innocent? Is our whole society run by sociopaths now?
I love to drink and Drive so this ruling is great. Us drunks rule the road so get over it loser.
When some potlicker tried to follow me up my driveway, at 2 AM, because "it was too dark to see my tail lights" he was tested at the scene and then tested again "downtown" Registering 0.17
Apprehending officers can also, and often do, use some video and audio at the scene. This guy, rocking back and forth on his feet, because he can hardly keep his balance, was convinced it was all the other driver's fault. Put that on video for the judge to see.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
We've convicted people of DUI for walking down the street
We? I don't get it. Are you implying that you, yourself, are responsible for this injustice? How can that be, when you have just declared your moral opposition to it? Were you in favor of it at one time, and since have flip-flopped your position?
I take it the several-thousand-year-old concept of a democratic republic is somehow new to you? Or perhaps it's the idea of social responsibility you're having trouble with...
Why do I get the sinking feeling this particular AC falls into the 'under 25' age group?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
...a ruling done to prevent a crap-storm of appeals and further contested DUI charges. I've seen such things happen before, where the ruling has less to do with evidence, and more to do with all the trouble that ruling on such evidence would cause. How much of a headache for law enforcement will it be if their DUI test proves flawed? It's a good thing to consider, even if it probably shouldn't affect the ruling...kind-of a "catch-.22."
Traffic laws are a sore spot for me. It pisses me off that a cop will sit on the side of a 6 lane road (3 lanes each way) ticketing people for going faster than the 60km/h speed limit on a divided road with no crosswalks (at the crest of a hill no less). Meanwhile, nearby there is a playground zone with kids playing, and people zip through there, but no cop in sight.
I think that police should focus on areas where they can actually improve public safety, specifically, school and playground zones. It is very, very, very rare to see a police officer ticketing people speeding or passing in a playground zone. Dont get me started on automated systems (multinova, red light cams, speed on green).
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Let's suppose that, for the sake of argument, we know that someone exactly six foot created a crime.
You have six subjects. You get a measuring tape. One person measures exactly six foot.
He's convicted. We find out 2 years later that the measuring stick was two inches off.
According to this the person couldn't appeal based on the fact that the measuring stick was incorrect.
Both are tools. The only difference is one is an electronic, software based tool. Of course, this would mean that the judge didn't think about the system like it was magic.
I suspect that the judge placed some emphasis on the cost of re-trying all of the cases that are based on this piece of equipment, in light of its obsolescence moving foreword
I suspect your thought process would be much easier to parse if you knew how to spell, but I digress...
In other words, actual justice is just too darn expensive? As far as piss-poor excuses go, that one ranks pretty fucking high.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The government is a representative democracy. Therefore, anything done by the state, is derived from a mandate from the people. The people are responsible for anything done by the state, QED.
So yes, he and anyone else with citizenship and of voting age are more-or-less responsible to this injustice.
Most if not all states will lock up mentally ill people if they are a danger to themselves or others. The difference is that it's not "for life" but rather just until the next hearing, which may be anywhere from less than a week for a person just entering the mental-health-court system to more than a year away for those who have obvious, chronic, problems that can't be sufficiently treated to allow the person to be released. The other difference is that it's to a locked mental hospital not to a prison.
Also, many if not most states treat "highly dangerous sex offenders" basically the same way as MN under "civil commitment" laws. There may be a trial, but it's typically a civil trial and by the time the state decides they want to keep you locked up, they've got enough evidence to convince a jury to the level required in a civil case. In some states this is for a period of time and they have to do a new trial but the reality is, once you've been locked up under civil commitment, you likely won't get out until your health deteriorates from old age enough that even if you still hold dangerous attitudes you won't be a danger to the public if released.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And I'm sure that the minority who weren't drunk will be satisfied to know that you think "the majority were drunk" is good enough reason not to overrule their convictions.
Is this an elected or appointed judge?
He ruled on the case as if he was elected.
It was recently discovered that Texas had executed an innocent man (the real person was found wandering the streets). I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted truely were murders, and if a few innocent people are on deathrow... oh well. /end sarcasm
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Whatever happened to the idea that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongly imprison one innocent man that this country's justice system was once based on?
Now what does a six-year hold on a DUI case do?
How many cases will just be dropped to clear the load?
The Administrative License Suspension/Revocation maxes out at 1y for the 3rd time.
More likely...they didn't want to throw them out because of revenue loss.
If it were that easy, it'd be mere corruption.
But consider that those with the libido dominandi seek money, sex, and power - in that order.
We all know that speed limit laws are often set capriciously, foolishly, and dangerously. But it's the law - and you'll obey.
It's like the marijuana debate. It doesn't matter that there's plenty of scientific evidence to show that alcohol is more dangerous, that legalizing marijuana reduces deaths and crime, etc. That's been known for at least decades. Yet the policies continue - why?
Sure, there's some financial emolument to certain players by having these laws, but there's way more benefit for the power structure. The point of these policies is to enforce the power structure. They dictate, you obey, logic and reason need not apply. Repeat until you understand who's in charge, what your position is, and how free you really are.
So then we get Supreme Court decisions like this one which takes a reasoned argument, throws it out, and that sets the new precedent. We must all obey these precedents, because that's what the system decided. We're taught that the system operates for our benefit, but primarily (literal sense) it operates for its own perpetuation. There's even SCOTUS precedent for decisions which basically say, "the defendant's claim has merit, but finding for him would threaten the system, so we find for the State."
"Follow the money" is good in business, but in politics, do that and also "follow the power".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I see nothing wrong with having a pint and driving home. Even several pints, if I'm there for several hours.
Caveat--I'm a 6' 200lb male. My 95lb female friend may require different standards.
The government is a representative democracy.
That's the claim. Have you proven it?
Therefore, anything done by the state, is derived from a mandate from the people.
And if the government violates its restricted mandate? If it has a single-digit approval rating? If the people aren't competent to make the deal? If the deal isn't hereditary?
The people are responsible for anything done by the state, QED.
Prove your terms first.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
attorneys say to request a blood or urine test and not a Breathalyzer test.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Breathalyzer-Test-For-DUI---Is-it-Your-Best-Bet?&id=3701454
That's awfully charitable of you.
Look, I said I don't approve, but at the same time I suspect that the majority of the convictions are correct. Those that are incorrect did have a chance to their day in court. That doesn't make it any better for those falsely convicted, but then again I never said it would
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I didn't say it was a good excuse. I didn't even say it was an action I approved of. I was GUESSING at the judges motivations. I think it helps at least a little that first offense DUI convictions do not result in prison time, and usually not even in a suspended license, but it is still a miscarriage of justice.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
An how many states use the death penalty as a punishment for DUI?
Their are degrees that your oversimplification ignore. Most first offense DUI convictions don't even end up in a suspended license, just a fine.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
It's not an either/or scenario you are describing. All tests (which a court case can be described as) have a two types of errors. Type 1 errors are false negatives and Type 2 are false positives. Decreasing one usually does increase the other, but you can never eliminate either of them. In this case the consequence of a false conviction is relatively minor as compared with the consequence of a false conviction in a murder case. 1st offense DUI convictions frequently don't even end up in a suspended drivers license, just a fine. That sucks, but it's not the same thing as the state executing a falsely convicted death row inmate as a previous commenter used as a comparison. Also keep in mind that most sobriety tests are administered AFTER the driver has given the police probable cause to request one (driving recklessly, speeding, swerving, smelling of alcohol, presence of an open container, etc.).
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Let's make this a drinking game. When someone posts an example of where Americans gave up freedoms for a bad reason we all drink. I'll start:
9/11.
After one rather scary incident driving home from a brewery many many years ago, I made the decision to never have more than one drink outside of the house under any circumstances. Bonus: The money I saved from not buying pricey drinks downtown has permitted me to stock a full bar at home.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
At what point did I say their convictions shouldn't be overturned? I made a GUESS at the JUDGES reasoning, and then said I DON'T APPROVE. The rest was my supposition as to how great a miscarriage of justice this was. My conclusion was "relatively minor" since the majority probably were guilty. Additional mitigation includes the low penalty for a first time DUI conviction (usually just a fine) as compared with the potential penalties for a false conviction in other cases with more on the line (prison time, death penalty, etc.). I never said I was happy with it.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Habitual drunk driver is found in his car, with the keys, drunk.... How about we enact a law to get rid of stupid people. That would make me happy.
FUCK YOU steve
I didn't say it was a good excuse.
And I didn't say that you said it was a good excuse, now did I?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Look, I said I don't approve
Then get fucking outraged over this miscarriage of justice.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The people are responsible for anything done by the state, QED.
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In other words, we are not responsible for the actions of our government: We are responsible for stopping them when they piss us off or endanger our lives.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
In most normal places they also take a blood test if your breath test is positive.
/end sarcasm
Just wanted to say thank you. I truly would not have been able to tell you were not being serious without that.
Regardless of the outcome, defense lawyers used the case effectively to pressure the prosecutor by creating uncertainty.
Why do I get the sinking feeling this particular AC falls into the 'under 25' age group?
Perhaps because you are ageist.
With the current life expectancy in the US (a hopefully appropriate assumption in a thread about minnesota) of 78.1 according to google and an assumption that nobody under the age of 13 has the patience or interest to hang out on a tech discussion site, you are guessing that a particular AC falls within (25-13) / (78-13) ~ 18% of the pool of candidate ages. To level that out to be a reasonable guess, we would need to assume that those under 25 are 50%/22% ~ 2.8 times more likely to fail to understand social responsibility. That's quite a gap, to assume we are almost 3 times as likely to eschew social responsibility.
While I certainly have no data, this seems to even be counter to largely accepted stereotypes of youth. I thought we were supposed to be bleeding-heart liberal hippies, letting our idealism prevent us from getting anything done? Stereotypically, the gray-haired investment banker in the fancy suit is the one who rejects social responsibility.
Why do I get the feeling you're in the "definitely over 25" age group? Hint: It's because paint us with such a broad stroke that clearly you have already dichotomized the world into "you all" (the "adults") and "us" (the "children" - many of whom have mortgages/rents, bills, responsibilities, retirement accounts, careers and credit histories by the way).
you clearly implied it.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
1st offense DUI convictions frequently don't even end up in a suspended drivers license, just a fine.
Where are you getting this from? My first offense resulted in a criminal trial that resulted in me going to jail, and the civil/traffic trial that resulted in me losing my license for a year.
I was in no accident (pulled over for speeding), and there was no BAC reading taken, no one was hurt... etc.
As someone who's not far out of that age group, I get the same feeling.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
There are a million miscarriages of justice a day in this country alone. I can't get furious over every single one of them. I place being falsely convicted of DUI pretty low on the list considering it includes false convictions in Murder cases, rape cases, child molestation cases, etc. where the entire life of the falsely convicted is destroyed, sometimes literally (death row). I suspect that in most first time DUI convictions the penalty is a stiff fine, maybe a revocation of driving for a subsequent offense. That sucks, and isn't fair, but its hard for me to get too worked up over it in light of greater miscarriages. I've only got so much righteous anger to go around, and this just isn't important enough to me. If you want to picket the judges house, then feel free. I'll even agree with your motivation, but you won't see me there.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Then we are quite irresponsible.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I love to drink and Drive so this ruling is great. Us drunks rule the road so get over it loser.
Obviously you're too drunk to realise that the appeals of drunks were thrown out - i.e. their convictions stand.
...and when we do not, we are then complicit.
People I know who've been convicted. Maybe my anecdotal experience isn't representative.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
The problem I see with the "logic" that anyone drinking enough alcohol to cause slight impairment while driving should be arrested and punished is what could (should?) follow if you really believe it.
For example... Cars with partially worn tires are less capable of stopping or maneuvering out of the way of obstacles than cars with new tires. For that matter, there's very clear evidence that simply choosing one brand/model of ties over another leads to differences in a vehicle's performance -- even when all tires in question are brand new. Should we start making arrests when someone has those cheap Asian tires on their vehicle, that test results show have less traction than others? Should someone be found criminally at fault if they injure someone in a car accident and it's found their tires were really close to needing replacement?
I think as a society, we're so eager now to punish drunk driving, we've gone towards practically a "zero tolerance" policy, without much regard for reality. Yes, drinking and driving is a "bad idea" on the whole. But like most things, the majority of people are able to use common sense, deciding for themselves if they're safe to drive or not. The ones who can't (even when others around them express their concern) are the ones who pose the real threat.
With practically all other aspects of operating motor vehicles, we seem to be accepting of the idea that there's a "reasonable level of tolerance" for conditions that hamper a driver from driving optimally. We have state inspections in place to keep dangerous cars off the road until they're fixed, but we only require they be checked once every couple years or so. People driving around with a headlight burnt out may get a ticket, but cars with dimmer headlights than the norm are usually ignored as "good enough". A tired driver is generally NOT arrested, though we know they're likely just as much of a hazard on the roads as someone who drank a beer or two recently.
Except that the last time somebody actually tried to do that, we ended up in a civil war. Slavery was only the excuse. The issues of state's rights went out the window when the Union won, and there's the whole business of the wholesale looting laughingly refered to as 'the Reconstruction' that I won't even get into. End result? A stronger federal government contrary to the beliefs and intents of the Founding Fathers. The point of a weak fed was to keep massive government stupidity on a local or state-wide level, not to allow it to infect and infest itself across the entire country.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
you clearly implied it.
Only to those whose comprehension of English is minimal (which, I admit, is likely a majority of the population).
To those that do understand the English vernacular, it's obvious my statement was directed at the idea of the judge's rationale.
Don't get all butthurt. It wasn't meant to be taken personally.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Then we are quite irresponsible.
Pretty much, yeah. But no rational person expects you to take all that responsibility onto your shoulders: Just a small part. If you write a letter to the President, about anything, whatever you feel is important, then you've done more in the ten minutes it took to sit down and make your voice heard than what fifty others will do this year. And anyone who respects the democratic process will appreciate that you did more than what was asked of you: Indeed, it's the only way problems get fixed. Do what you can, when you can, and you can consider yourself a 'good' citizen. But if all you do is pay your taxes and whine about how the world isn't fair... well, you'll have a lot of company, at least.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm of the mindset that even a little alcohol in your system should keep you off the road. Alcohol affects people in different ways, what may be fine for you isn't fine for me. If you wan to have a drink, don't plan on driving.
Then please don't drink any orange juice, which can get to up to 0.4% alcohol (around 1 proof).
Once the cop decides he's going to arrest you for a DUI, its pretty irrelevant what data he does or doesn't collect or how its collected. Unless you're up for spending six to eight months of your life and about $15,000+ to put on a jury trial (and who knows what a jury is going to do), you're pretty much guilty on the spot. Its all well constructed legislation that was passed literally without opposition, as no politician is interested in sticking up for drunk drivers.
Further, in many states (like California) you're charged criminally AND as a separate administrative process by the department of motor vehicles. The DMV portion in CA simply requires that there be sufficient evidence of guilt and is independent of whatever happens in court on the criminal aspect. The DMV considers a police report with the arresting officers opinion that you were incapable of driving as sufficient evidence, without a need for a breathalyzer result. Further, some people are convicted of a dui with a blood alcohol level below .08, again because the arresting officer felt based on his observations that the driver was drunk.
The "cake" in this situation is the truth about the dividing line between social drinking and drunk driving. I think most people would agree that having a drink or two after work or with dinner is social drinking and should be legal if one should decide to drive home. However many people would be legally drunk on two drinks the size and composition of what many bars and restaurants pour.
Throw in the pressure to make DUI arrests, the ridiculous amount of fines and fees that fill wallets, the lack of any sort of sympathy or lobby effort to make things fair and reasonable, and then leave the 'social or drunk' decision to the cop...
So its advisable to stop worrying about the cockamamie systems they use to 'prove' whether you were too drunk to drive, those don't really matter much. Understand that there is no such thing as 'social drinking and driving', that by speeding a little or failing to stop completely at a stop sign can easily lead to a DUI arrest even if you haven't had that much to drink, and that arrest will be fairly devastating in terms of financial and personal impacts.
If pulled over and you've been drinking and there's a chance you're over the legal limit, REFUSE ALL FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS. You still have to get out of the car, if asked. Invoke your right to remain silent and KEEP SILENT.
Source: IAAL
Complacent assholes like you are what's wrong with this world. You can get outraged over every miscarriage of justice, and you should. If more people did, we'd be able to do something about them. Authoritarian judges like this would fear for their jobs... at the least.
AC upstream was right. You deserve to be falsely convicted of a crime. I will enjoy not getting worked up about that injustice.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I was #8 in the jury pool for a DUI case. They were empaneling 12 jurors so I was going to be on the jury unless the prosecution or the defense chose to strike me. During voire dire the prosecutor asked a general question along the lines of "how do you feel about DUI cases?" I raised my hand, explained that I was a computer programmer, and said that I was skeptical of the reliability of breathalyzers because of articles I had read in trade journals concerning buggy breathalyzer software. I was not picked to be on the jury.
In most places, the size of a speeding ticket is a function of excess speed. People tend to drive faster on highways than in neighborhoods, so there's more money to be made getting tickets on highways.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Also, if everyone exercised their right to a fair trial, then this bullshit criminal legal system would collapse.
Theoretically true; unfortunately very few can actually afford to go to trial.
Why do I get the sinking feeling this particular AC falls into the 'under 25' age group?
Perhaps because you are ageist.
Perhaps, but unlikely. More likely the reason is, in my own experience, the only people I've ever met who literally do not understand the concept of social responsibility, especially in regards to the American republic, are teenagers. Not to say that all people over 25 understand the concept, just that, if there are older folks who don't, I've never met them. Weltanschauung.
The real question here is, why are you all butthurt about it?
That's quite a gap, to assume we are almost 3 times as likely to eschew social responsibility.
Ah, I see - you're a member of that particular age set. Explains it all.
While I certainly have no data
That's quite evident... obvious by the emotional reaction. Not that there's a problem with that, except the fact that people who react emotionally trend towards eschewing logic and reason, although it's worth noting this sort of behavior knows no age limit.
Why do I get the feeling you're in the "definitely over 25" age group? Hint: It's because paint us with such a broad stroke that clearly you have already dichotomized the world into "you all" (the "adults") and "us" (the "children" - many of whom have mortgages/rents, bills, responsibilities, retirement accounts, careers and credit histories by the way).
Hey, want to know what's more funny than accusing someone of being "ageist?" Doing so, then going on a 3 paragraph rant in which you A) make assumptions about the person's age, and B) lambast prior generations for perceived wrongs.
You kids crack me up...
BTW, yea, I'm definitely over 25, but probably not by nearly as much as you think. It's just that I learned, quite early on, how to not sound like a sniveling little punk when I write responses.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The traffic laws are a very sore spot for me as well. The types who go around with a "cops are heroes!" attitude get under my skin, when they actually fall for the propaganda about "we're only issuing tickets because we care about your safety".
To be honest, I'm a person who has gone my entire life with probably no more than 5 traffic tickets (including a state trooper who cited me for driving 65 in a 55MPH zone on an interstate, back when I was 18 -- and that may have been one of the only really "fair" ones I think I received). So it's not a case of me constantly getting tickets for speeding or reckless driving and having a chip on my shoulder.
I just see the entire thing as little more than tax collection / revenue generation, under a guise of performing a public service. Any time an excuse can be made to increase the financial penalties for a given violation, they jump on it, regardless of its actual effectiveness. (Just a few weeks ago, I made a road trip from St. Louis to the Chicago area, and I must have gone through at LEAST 10 different "road construction zones" with signs announcing fines would be doubled or tripled for exceeding the posted speed limits. In about 9 out of 10 of those zones, there was no actual construction taking place. In a few cases, I saw a pickup truck with one or two workers at a site, but they appeared to be there only to double-check on some details of work already completed, or ?? It was abundantly clear that there was no pressing reason to slow traffic down from the 65MPH limit to as little as 35MPH (creating big traffic backups) -- and in fact, most people elected to ignore the reduced speed demands because it was so clearly pointless. Still, a cop could easily decide to sit at any one of those work zones and issue BIG $ fines -- and drivers would have no recourse.
The whole "game" of cops trying to hide so they can catch a speeder is insulting, as well. If they're *really* doing all of this to "protect and serve" as their logo always claims -- wouldn't you think they'd want their police vehicle to be very clearly visible to all of the traffic? Certainly, you wouldn't use an *unmarked* car, where someone might not even be sure they were legitimately being pulled over!
As someone who's not far out of that age group, I get the same feeling.
My situation, precisely.
Often I fear for the future of this world, seeing the kind of people our socio/economic/educational climate is generating these days... Part of me feels that I'm just getting to the point where I no longer understand what it's like to be young, dumb, and full of reproductive fluids; however, a larger part is firmly entrenched in the belief that the seemingly rampant ignorance of my youngers is a result of intentional dumbing-down...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
End result? A stronger federal government contrary to the beliefs and intents of the Founding Fathers. The point of a weak fed was to keep massive government stupidity on a local or state-wide level, not to allow it to infect and infest itself across the entire country.
The federal government has grown more powerful over the years, which you'd expect -- it is the United States of America afterall. The point of a weak fed wasn't to keep "massive stupidity" at a local level -- it was because the people of that era were terrified of another king in a faraway place telling them how it was going to be, and them having no say. They wanted their autonomy, and felt a weak fed would provide the best security against another run-in with corrupt royalty. "The goverment which governs best, governs least." The founding fathers intent was to have a government that would survive longer than 13 years. We tried a weak fed. It failed. So to balance the concerns of another King trying to run things, they divided the government into three branches, and further subdivided things into the state and the federal government, etc. They figured that the best insurance against another king was to distribute the power with a system of checks and balances so that many people, rather than a few, would have to be "in" on any power grab.
Also, slavery wasn't an "excuse". For the most part, our country has historically moved towards granting more rights and freedoms to an ever-widening swath of the populace. The only step backwards really was when the 'equal rights' amendment failed to pass, which would have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. Legally, men and women would have been identical then. Because that didn't happen, the second setback in civil rights occurred: Gay marriage. If there was no legal distinction between men and women, then it would have been a non-event. But for the time being, it seems that discrimination on the basis of sex has not only become more prevalent, but the legal divisions between the two groups has deepened. I'm not sure what this means for the future of the country, but it is definately not part of the overall historical trend of the previous 200 years.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Law and Order should do an episode where a DUI is being contested. The defense could call a witness who has had a couple of beers and use a handful of breathalyzers from different manufacturers and models to show they all get different results.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
My children will be home schooled until they are old enough to understand the importance of education and have learned how to learn on their own. At that point, they will be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to attend public schools, a private school if I can afford it, or continue home schooling. This is one of many decisions my wife and I discussed and agreed upon *before* deciding to marry; of course, the vast majority of couples who marry don't take the realities of the future into consideration, so decisions like this are set aside "until they have to be made" and one or both parties gives in, not wanting to argue, and the kids end up in an "educational" system that doesn't teach them anything useful (amongst many other "easy way out" decisions that get made when a couple simply can't agree on things), or they end up in a single parent home.
I barely graduated; not because I didn't understand the material, not because I had no desire to succeed, but because I was spending my time learning things above and beyond what was being taught in the classroom, rather than doing the classwork. I passed tests, I aced midterms and finals, but I was too busy, after having run through the provided textbooks in the first month or so of the class, seeking new material and learning new things that were *not* being taught in class, to waste my time on the classwork. This is a direct resuly of being taught, at a young age, how to learn on my own; and it has been instrumental in my success. The more I think about it, the more I also see a strong correlation between the actual ability to learn independently and the ability and willingness to take responsibility for one's own life and actions. That's what's greatly lacking in the younger generations and, to some extent, ours, as well.
I know I've touched on several seemingly unrelated topics in this post and most readers are going to think I'm just all over the place. That's fine, all I ask is that you step back and take a look at the big picture, I'm probably not as far out there as you think I am.
In order for a person to be willing or able to take responsibility for something, they must first understand that thing. In order for someone to understand something, they must be able to learn; if they can only learn when things are explained to them, rather than on their own, then that thing must be explained in terms they already understand. We're breeding generations now that do not know how to learn, do not understand their own actions, and take no responsibility for those actions, or their own lives, as a result. It's a vicious circle that can only get worse, unless those of us who see it happening and are willing and able to take responsibility, who see what's happening, get off our asses and do something about it. That said, I'm not sure what I can do, beyond simply not raising my own kids that way and writing my congresscritters to beg for change; if anyone has any workable ideas, I'd love to hear them.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
There is no more right to a fair trial in DUI cases. USSC said so a long time ago.
Sig is on vacation
Ah, I see - you're a member of that particular age set. Explains it all.
Indeed. Someone went to a public forum and spoke unfairly ill of a demographic to which I belong, to which I have no choice about belonging, and which is fairly apparent to those around me, causing a personal effect on my life when people believe it is appropriate to generalize about that group and apply those generalizations to me. I see little difference between this and the reply "I see - you're a member of that particular race. Explains it all" to someone who accused you of racism.
Hey, want to know what's more funny than accusing someone of being "ageist?" Doing so, then going on a 3 paragraph rant in which you A) make assumptions about the person's age, and B) lambast prior generations for perceived wrongs.
While I did make a guess as to your age, none of my arguments were based on it - it was the conclusion, not the assumption. And I never did "lambast prior generations" for anything. If you care to read my comment, I make no claims about the behavior of those older than myself whatsoever.
Also "a three-paragraph rant" is a particularly dishonest way to characterize one paragraph summarizing a mathematical computation, one paragraph stating (but not arguing, as I do not agree) the views of others, and one paragraph of conclusion - the only one with any emotional content at all.
You kids crack me up...
This quote is more insightful than expected. By using this group identifier ("you kids" indicating all of us, even though only I am talking) you are evoking stereotypes of my demographic against me, and simultaneously attempting to attribute my actions in this thread to all of "you kids". Suppose that my actions in this thread are inappropriate - where you crossed the line into ageism is where you assumed that this reflects on the rest of my age group.
Since when is what's considered legal actually correct in real world scenarios?
Collectively, yes, but not individually.
Also, considering government corruption I would challenge your given that the people have enough say in who is elected for the democracy to count as representative in the first place.
So long as I can actually vote for who I want to, that's all well and good. But when you have fiascoes like Diebold and the great Ohio election hack screwing the citizens out of their suffrage it's a completely different ballgame.
People should speak up more often but faulting them for their silence is hardly reasonable when their proverbial throats have been slit by the system so that they can't complain even if they wanted to.
See also learned helplessness.
A bug is a bug, unless the company at fault can produce evidence that the bugs could not of caused a misread then I think the DUI's should be overturned.
Often I fear for the future of this world, seeing the kind of people our socio/economic/educational climate is generating these days... Part of me feels that I'm just getting to the point where I no longer understand what it's like to be young, dumb, and full of reproductive fluids
CanHasDIY, 2012
I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint"
Hesiod, 8th century BC
Well, in my state, being arrested (and not even convicted) for DUI means your license is automatically suspended.
Well said;
cut from the same cloth, you and I.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I won't speak to capital punishment rates, since in many US states capital punishment is a de facto life sentence.
However, America was no higher than 5th in executions per capita in 2011.
The United States carried out 43 of the world's 676 or more officially-acknowledged executions last year.
Some countries with higher totals:
* Iraq - 68
* Iran - 360 or more
* Saudi Arabia - 82
Some smaller countries with higher rates than America:
* Yemen - 41 or more executions
Source:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/death-penalty-2011-alarming-levels-executions-few-countries-kill-2012-03-27
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ah, I see - you're a member of that particular age set. Explains it all.
Indeed. Someone went to a public forum and spoke unfairly ill of a demographic to which I belong,
No, you perceive someone spoke unfairly regarding your generation; by your own admission, you lack the dataset to back said perception as fact. Therefore, it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe that you yourself share said opinion, and are posting merely as an overcompensation mechanism in a failed attempt to differentiate yourself from your admittedly inferior peers.
I see little difference between this and the reply "I see - you're a member of that particular race. Explains it all" to someone who accused you of racism.
Not surprising, given your previous admission (knowing or otherwise) of general ignorance. Fun fact: The human brain is not fully formed until the 25th year of life, regardless of race.
Not to mention, when you perceive that someone is stereotyping your generation in a manner you take exception to, would it not stand to reason that exemplifying said stereotype probably isn't the smartest way to go?
Hey, want to know what's more funny than accusing someone of being "ageist?" Doing so, then going on a 3 paragraph rant in which you A) make assumptions about the person's age, and B) lambast prior generations for perceived wrongs.
While I did make a guess as to your age, none of my arguments were based on it - it was the conclusion, not the assumption. And I never did "lambast prior generations" for anything. If you care to read my comment, I make no claims about the behavior of those older than myself whatsoever.
Face it, you made the same generalizations regarding age as you accuse me of. An adult (the definition of which has less to do with age, and more to do with maturity level) would own it and take responsibility (which, ironically, was my base premise). A child would deny it.
I don't see you owning your words, so, what did you think I would see in terms of your mental acuity?
Also "a three-paragraph rant" is a particularly dishonest way to characterize one paragraph summarizing a mathematical computation, one paragraph stating (but not arguing, as I do not agree) the views of others, and one paragraph of conclusion - the only one with any emotional content at all.
Yea, calling them 'paragraphs' would probably be insulting to all the actual writers out there. Sorry 'bout that, linguists!
You kids crack me up...
This quote is more insightful than expected. By using this group identifier ("you kids" indicating all of us, even though only I am talking) you are evoking stereotypes of my demographic against me, and simultaneously attempting to attribute my actions in this thread to all of "you kids".
Yea, and there's absolutely no way that was written purely for the sake of yanking your chain. I mean, who gets on the internet and writes stuff for the sake of fucking with other people? Nobody I know... :D
Suppose that my actions in this thread are inappropriate - where you crossed the line into ageism is where you assumed that this reflects on the rest of my age group.
Well, unless you're the AC who made the original post, you put yourself in the firing line when you responded. Seems a perfect time for a Shakespeare quote: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
If you can't take the heat, stay the fuck off my lawn.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The fact is that your actions do reflect on the groups you belong to. They color one's perception of your friends, your family, the company you work for, the city, state, and country you live in, any social clubs you may be a member of, the school you went to, your race, your gender, and, indeed, your age group. Moreso, your actions reflect on humanity, itself. The degree to which your actions reflect on each particular group will vary, based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to: the size of the group, how well known the group is, how disruptive your actions are (disruption can be positive or negative), and how relevant those actions are to the group in question. In this case, since you're entering (starting, but, I digress) a conversation about ageism, your age group is the most prominent group in that list and your actions are quite noticeably disruptive, so they reflect strongly on that group.
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case, however, you are not the exception. Prove my wrong by comprehending and applying the above lesson. My generation is open to being proven wrong; is yours?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Then maybe they should follow the law instead of acting so indignant when they get caught.
And even so, a valid point was made; though, perhaps, not the point that was intended.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If you can't take the heat, stay the fuck off my lawn.
I thought I smelled barbeque! I'll bring the beer!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
if the only state right in question wasn't the right to enforce slavery, then you might have an idea. As it is, I really doubt it, as you apparently haven't even read the southern explanations.
Yea, like validation of the omitted portion of my statement.
I'm consistently amazed at how having access to all the world's knowledge at our fingertips has collectively made our species (at least, appear) less intelligent... thank goodness the internet didn't exist in the 8th century, we'd have never made it this far.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
always think you can do whatever you want and expect everyone else to suffer the consequences?
is asking a question that puts you in a bad light being intellectually dishonest. The truth of the matter is that it is self-important idiots like you with your delusions of adequacy that are pseudo-intelectually dishonest.
if you actually acted like you claim the parent poster should, you'd be too busy being outraged to read slashdot. Sounds a lot more likely that you are upset that everyone else doesn't share your own self-centered goals. I had a four-year old like that.
1. Electing Bush
2. Electing Obama
You assume guilt. Shame on you. Perhaps you think yourself immune to false accusation.
I barely graduated; not because I didn't understand the material, not because I had no desire to succeed, but because I was spending my time learning things above and beyond what was being taught in the classroom, rather than doing the classwork. I passed tests, I aced midterms and finals, but I was too busy, after having run through the provided textbooks in the first month or so of the class, seeking new material and learning new things that were *not* being taught in class, to waste my time on the classwork.
Sigh. Yet another "i sucked at school because I was too smart". You DO realize that if you go "above and beyond" what's taught in class, you should be able to ace what's taught in class? If I'm so smart in kindergarten that I'm working on Calculus instead of learning to count blocks and shapes, I should be able to count blocks and shapes in my sleep.
You DO realize that if you go "above and beyond" what's taught in class, you should be able to ace what's taught in class
Right here, in my comment, which you quoted:
I passed tests, I aced midterms and finals
Yet another "i sucked at school because I was too smart".
I didn't do the classwork, not because I couldn't figure it out, but, and this is just the second half of the sentence I referenced inthe above quote:
but I was too busy, after having run through the provided textbooks in the first month or so of the class, seeking new material and learning new things that were *not* being taught in class, to waste my time on the classwork.
TL;DR: I do realize that if I go "above and beyond" what's taught in class, I should be able to ace what's taught in class, and, in fact, did. Classwork, which I did not do, however, counts toward the grade, as well.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Sigh. No, slavery was the root cause for the terrorist organization that called itself the Confederacy, by the terrorist's own admission. "Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace...property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." -- Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union
Double sigh. The whole point of the Constitution was to create a strong federal government, because the weak one of the Articles of Confederation failed. The "original intent" of Federalists like Madison was that the federal government would have more power over things like commerce and taxation than the British Parliament had had.
And, if you haven't noticed, this whole discussion is about how a state -- not the federal gubbmint -- is doing something in violation of people's rights. This is exactly the sort of behavior where the fed should step in to guarantee that a state respects citizens' due process rights.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Perhaps, but unlikely. More likely the reason is, in my own experience, the only people I've ever met who literally do not understand the concept of social responsibility, especially in regards to the American republic, are teenagers
If that's truly your experience, then you have been truly blessed. Maybe the younger age group has a somewhat higher incidence, but it's really not hard to find evidence for a very significant population of older adults who lack this understanding.
BTW, yea, I'm definitely over 25, but probably not by nearly as much as you think. It's just that I learned, quite early on, how to not sound like a sniveling little punk when I write responses.
Odd, I can't find evidence to support this claim.
Perhaps, but unlikely. More likely the reason is, in my own experience, the only people I've ever met who literally do not understand the concept of social responsibility, especially in regards to the American republic, are teenagers. Not to say that all people over 25 understand the concept, just that, if there are older folks who don't, I've never met them. Weltanschauung.
You've ignored the fact that 95% of Slashdot readers are argumentative bastards. He's likely 55 (still living in his mom's basement) and knows the correct answer, but argues anyway because replies to his lies are the only interaction he gets, other than the pizza delivery guy (used to be the chinese delivery place too, but he's banned for life. Don't ask).
Learn to love Alaska
I simply moved out of the US to a "socialist" place that has lower taxes and better services. Isn't that the American way? Let the consumer decide and vote with their feet.
Learn to love Alaska
With the sobriety checkpoints, there isn't even protection from warrant-less searches.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Let's make this a drinking game. When someone posts an example of where Americans gave up freedoms for a bad reason we all drink. I'll start:
9/11.
#2: Prohibition, naturally.
Heading off to get drunk now...
Not even close to being representative.
Representative of those who can afford good lawyers, perhaps.
Try getting a DUI on a public defender budget.
The only reason you get hauled into the police dept and told to blow in the machine is when you've already failed the field sobriety test or are obviously under the influence. The machine is just there confirm the circumstantial evidence. All the prosecutor needs it to have the cop testify that the person appeared under the influence and failed the field sobriety test (another test that generally stands up in court).
The courts are reluctant to through out the breathalizer for the same reason they won't toss out radar/lidar guns. The know they aren't foolproof but they accept that the false positive rate is very low.
One of us is clearly dumb here.
So why didn't you, ummm, do the classwork then?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Anybody know which law that is?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
THIS.
However, America was no higher than 5th in executions per capita in 2011.
Well, that makes it perfectly all right then. As long as there are a few countries that are worse then there is nothing for us to worry about.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
See mom, I'm not the dumbest kid on the bus!
It's not a very long bus, though.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The people are responsible for anything done by the state, QED.
.deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
it already breaks down at this point, congress approval rating is around 10-15%, that's nowhere near a majority
One of us is clearly dumb here.
Yup, you got that one right.
So why didn't you, ummm, do the classwork then?
From the post you replied to:
I passed tests, I aced midterms and finals but I was too busy, after having run through the provided textbooks in the first month or so of the class, seeking new material and learning new things that were *not* being taught in class, to waste my time on the classwork.
I think we've discovered who the dumb one is.
Then again, anyone who looked at your past posts wouldn't even need to read the OP to guess correctly.
Seriously, your posts should include a gallon of brain-bleach for every reader just out of simple human decency. People shouldn't have to waste perfectly-good memory cells on the tripe you post.
That answers what you were doing instead. It doesn't explain why. If you're such a genius, how come you missed the fact that it'd bring your grade down? Why didn't you grok that sometimes the system sucks but you have to go along with it? Why didn't you make use of the super dooper stuff by taking AP classes?
Is it the one who's pretending to be two people?
Sorry snowflake, RearNakedChoke (1102093) is right on the nail.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The biggest insult is when they put a speed camera on the back of the sign where the speed limit changes. It takes time for a car to slow down safely so any reasonable person would allow a reasonable distance before they expect the traffic to be travelling at the new speed but you will obviously get far more revenue if you put the camera behind the new sign...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
In 2000 I was at my Brother in laws New year’s party (Deputy Sherriff) , hammered out of my gourd, we all got tested for fun, and I blew 5 greens in a row. My wife, who had not been drinking, but had given me a kiss when the ball dropped, was blowing red.
Made me glad to be an American.
Come to my city, There's a cop sitting in the alley just after a school zone in my neighbourhood regularly. I see people getting pulled over for going over the 40 kmh limit quite a bit.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
This is one area where the cops in my area actually get it right (they normally don't around here). I drive through a school zone every day to get to work and, while annoying, it makes sense because there are always kids walking to the school (school zone is between 730-830). At least once a week, when school is in session, there is at least one cop sitting there.
That sort of belief is prevalent across all of written history.
I've always had something of an image of my age cohort as "normal". When I was a teenager, that was normal, and adults were still a bit mysterious. I couldn't tell why they did some things. Now that I'm way out of that age group, I think of people who've been through a whole lot and learned to cope as normal, and teenagers just don't get it. If I were again a teenager, with whatever passes for my current wisdom, I'd do a lot of things a lot differently, and so my idea of being a teenager is mostly that of an adult with a nice new body and lack of responsibility.
I suspect that my view is rather common, and it leads to elders complaining about the youth of "today" from time immemorial, and being wrong about it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That answers what you were doing instead. It doesn't explain why. If you're such a genius, how come you missed the fact that it'd bring your grade down? Why didn't you grok that sometimes the system sucks but you have to go along with it? Why didn't you make use of the super dooper stuff by taking AP classes?
Why? Because I was more interested in learnig above and beyond the classwork provided than I was in acing the class. I passed and that's all that matters. I didn't miss the fact that I was lowering my grades, I simply didn't care, I knew I would still pass and, again, that's what matters. Further, the system almost always sucks and, by going along with it, you only serve to perpetuate that. Have you looked around lately? And, actually, in high school, when those AP classes were available to me (I was a TAG student on elementary and middle school), I did take them, along with a vocational course, which took 3hr out of my day, which I helped teach, my junior and senior years.
I think we've discovered who the dumb one is
Is it the one who's pretending to be two people?
And who's that? I'm not pretending to be anything.
Crawl back under your rock. We'll let you know when the system stops sucking and it's safe to come back out.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Except that, in thise case, "Elders" are barely 5 years older, and that time is very memorable.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I was calling someone out on SEVERELY misrepresenting the facts.
I don't want someone falsely assuming America kills at the same rate as Iran (America would have to execute 1200 in 2011 to match Iran's rate), Saudi Arabia (would need to be over 900), or Yemen (would need to be over 480).
43 is a small fraction of these numbers.
So even if we are 5th, we are a long, long way behind the countries in the top 4.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If there is a police car for every location where driving fast is dangerous, making them visible is a good strategy. People will slow down when seeing the police car, defusing the danger.
Now for better or worse, in most potentially dangerous situations no police car is visible for the simple reason that no police car is there. So the most important situation that you want to condition drivers for is the situation of a speed limit without a police car in sight.
It would be even better if one could condition them on potentially dangerous situations, but people learn mostly from damage, and if the damage is in the form of a speeding ticket rather than killing or maiming yourself and others, it comes cheaper for society.
In the end, do you really think the south gave half a shit about states' rights? If I remember correctly, they weren't too pleased when the north figured they had the "right" to ignore the Fugitive Slave Act.