Enthusiastic Ron Paul Supporting Teen to Fight Citations

[FireofLiberty]

Sorry if this has been posted. My local CBS-affiliate here in NC (the Triangle) picked up the story and I thought I'd pass it along:

http://www.wral.com/news/strange/story/2415427/

Enthusiastic GOP Teen to Fight Citations

Posted: Feb. 8, 2008
Updated: Feb. 9, 2008

OWATONNA, Minn. — An 18-year-old Republican's enthusiasm for presidential hopeful Ron Paul could cost him more than $550.

Cody Hauer has been cited four times in one week for displaying a 13-inch-by-40-inch "Ron Paul Revolution" decal in the rear window of his car. The problem is that such decals are illegal if they obstruct the driver's view.

"I support Ron Paul, the city police department doesn't," he said. "They gave me a DWR - driving while Republican."

Owatonna Police Chief Shaun LaDue said his officers followed the law.

"The political aspect of this doesn't enter into the equation at all," LaDue said. "It's very clear in state statute that you cannot have anything that obstructs the driver's vision."

Besides being in violation of the law, Hauer showed disrespect toward the officer during each traffic stop, LaDue said. "He talks himself into a citation each time," LaDue said.

Hauer said he'll argue in court that the law violates his First Amendment right to free speech.

"To be honest, I'm probably not going to win, but I'm going to go down fighting," he said.

 

[utrunner07]

Meh...can't really support breaking the law...the kid should have taken it down after the first time. He got what he deserved, needs to follow the law. He is coming off as an idiot saying he got the ticket becuase the police don't support RP.

 

[scar]

I wonder, is there a way to make transparent decals? That can't be illegal can it?

 

[FireofLiberty]

Meh...can't really support breaking the law...the kid should have taken it down after the first time. He got what he deserved, needs to follow the law. He is coming off as an idiot saying he got the ticket becuase the police don't support RP.

Ever hear of civil disobedience? Why would you follow the law if you believe the law is wrong?

 

[utrunner07]

Ever hear of civil disobedience? Why would you follow the law if you believe the law is wrong?

fine by me if thats what he is trying to do. I personally would have picked a more important battle (can't fight them all) but to each his own. He needs to realize though that if he is going to do this there will be consequences, sounds like he did it just to get attention so that he could do some bitchin.

Really thats a legit law imo, it does pose a safety threat to other drivers if he can't see out his rear view. And again, I really doubt this was about the law. Sounds more like he got mad becuase he couldn't do what he wanted so he decided to make a big deal about it.

 

[Mental Dribble]

How about trucks that dont have rear windows? Like box trucks.... you don't need a rear window to safely drive a vechicle...

 

[damoncrowe]

How about trucks that dont have rear windows? Like box trucks.... you don't need a rear window to safely drive a vechicle...

Agreed. Its like a seat belt law. I can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt in my car, but I can ride a motorcycle all day long as long as I protect my melon.

But, after two citations, he might check into another form of advertising.

 

[utrunner07]

How about trucks that dont have rear windows? Like box trucks.... you don't need a rear window to safely drive a vechicle...

are you serious? you really want to argue about this? fine. have you ever driven behind a truck? remember all the warning signs citing possible blind spots and the danger of following a truck? yeah its dangerous if your not careful and driving a car not being able to see out the back is dangerous also...

look when Ron Paul supporters start bitching about EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING it makes others just tune us out. Lets focus on the more important things first.

 

[utrunner07]

Agreed. Its like a seat belt law.

not at all like the seat belt law...the seat belt law really only effects YOU. The rear view window law effects all others on the road.


this statement really just hits me the wrong way:

"I support Ron Paul, the city police department doesn't," he said. "They gave me a DWR - driving while Republican."

he needs to acknowledge he broke the law. blaming it on political bias is immature, irresponsible, and makes Ron Paul supporters look like idiots who think they are above the law.

 

[brandon13830]

It seems like a pretty legitimate law to me.

 

[jake]

I wonder, is there a way to make transparent decals? That can't be illegal can it?

 

[FireofLiberty]

fine by me if thats what he is trying to do. I personally would have picked a more important battle (can't fight them all) but to each his own. He needs to realize though that if he is going to do this there will be consequences, sounds like he did it just to get attention so that he could do some bitchin.

Really thats a legit law imo, it does pose a safety threat to other drivers if he can't see out his rear view. And again, I really doubt this was about the law. Sounds more like he got mad becuase he couldn't do what he wanted so he decided to make a big deal about it.

But if you believe in liberty the entire point is to be able to do what you want to do, even if others object to it. That's the entire point. The line is drawn when it infringes on the life or liberty of others. So the question is then "is it a reasonable enough safety risk to be considered an infringement on the life or liberty of others"? I don't think so. First of all, no infringement has been carried out. There's just a "risk." If we base everything on "risk" we'll be in a police state in no time because look at everything that has infringed our rights that has been allowed to be pushed through based on the argument of "risk" or "threat," such as The PATRIOT Act or The Military Commissions Act.

Second, the supposed "risk" or "threat" of his window decal is based upon the premise that it obstructs his view. How do they reach that determination? Did they crawl inside his head and look through his eyes? No. Is there a certain set area that a window decal cannot cover or is it just based on the whims/opinion of the officer writing the citation? Probably the latter. Did they even so much as set inside the driver's seat to check and see how "obstructive" the view was? I doubt it.

It's a completely bogus law based on that premise alone.

Third, back to the fact that no infringement of life and liberty has been carried out, if this kid is in a car accident and injures someone or damages their property (their vehicle) and they can prove that it was because of the decal than they should receive compensation for that reason because their life and liberty was infringed upon and the kid is responsible. But, until that happens, there's no argument that can be made that he has infringed on any body's life or liberty simply by having a decal on his car.

 

[damoncrowe]

not at all like the seat belt law...the seat belt law really only effects YOU. The rear view window law effects all others on the road.

I was referring to the fact that box truckswould be immune from such law in the same way that motorcyclists are immune from the seatbelt law. Besides he should be able to avoid collisions behind him while driving down the road.

 

[FireofLiberty]

not at all like the seat belt law...the seat belt law really only effects YOU. The rear view window law effects all others on the road.


this statement really just hits me the wrong way:

"I support Ron Paul, the city police department doesn't," he said. "They gave me a DWR - driving while Republican."

he needs to acknowledge he broke the law. blaming it on political bias is immature, irresponsible, and makes Ron Paul supporters look like idiots who think they are above the law.

Never know, though. I see people that have back window decals that have to at least as big if not bigger than the one he must have and I wonder how many tickets they get. If there's one thing I've learned over the past few months is that there's a lot of people who really hate Ron Paul and his supporters.

Don't know if that's the case here, but I'm not willing to throw the kid under the bus for such comments knowing the kind of resentment (and one near death experience) I've personally experienced for being a RP supporter in the last few months.

Plus, we don't know the whole story, there might be more to it than is in the article that leads him to believe a bias is partly responsible for him getting citations.

Also, seat belt laws DON'T always just effect you and I say this as an opponent of seat belt laws. What if you're in the car with someone and you're in an accident and the fact that you're not wearing one causes you to flop around like a rag doll all over the car and the person in the car next to you who is wearing the seat belt?

Or what happens if you're not wearing your seat belt, are in a head on collusion and you fly out the wind shield and slam into the wind shield of the person you hit and therefore into them?

 

[utrunner07]

But if you believe in liberty the entire point is to be able to do what you want to do, even if others object to it. That's the entire point. The line is drawn when it infringes on the life or liberty of others. So the question is then "is it a reasonable enough safety risk to be considered an infringement on the life or liberty of others"? I don't think so. First of all, no infringement has been carried out. There's just a "risk." If we base everything on "risk" we'll be in a police state in no time because look at everything that has infringed our rights that has been allowed to be pushed through based on the argument of "risk" or "threat," such as The PATRIOT Act or The Military Commissions Act.

Second, the supposed "risk" or "threat" of his window decal is based upon the premise that it obstructs his view. How do they reach that determination? Did they crawl inside his head and look through his eyes? No. Is there a certain set area that a window decal cannot cover or is it just based on the whims/opinion of the officer writing the citation? Probably the latter. Did they even so much as set inside the driver's seat to check and see how "obstructive" the view was? I doubt it.

It's a completely bogus law based on that premise alone.

Third, back to the fact that no infringement of life and liberty has been carried out, if this kid is in a car accident and injures someone or damages their property (their vehicle) and they can prove that it was because of the decal than they should receive compensation for that reason because their life and liberty was infringed upon and the kid is responsible. But, until that happens, there's no argument that can be made that he has infringed on any body's life or liberty simply by having a decal on his car.

yeah, some good points I can't really argue with concerning the law, I'd still be a little hesitant to agree but its really not that big of a deal....

I guess it just seems that from his statement that "they fined me becuase I am republican" the whole thing just seems a little phony. He did break the law (rather its a good law or not, maybe your right and its not but until its changed its the law). So he needs to stop accusing the police officers of making up some bogus charge. They are doing their job enforcing the laws that are on the books, can't really attack them for that, just seems a little immature IMO.

 

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

But if you believe in liberty the entire point is to be able to do what you want to do, even if others object to it. That's the entire point. The line is drawn when it infringes on the life or liberty of others. So the question is then "is it a reasonable enough safety risk to be considered an infringement on the life or liberty of others"? I don't think so. First of all, no infringement has been carried out. There's just a "risk." If we base everything on "risk" we'll be in a police state in no time because look at everything that has infringed our rights that has been allowed to be pushed through based on the argument of "risk" or "threat," such as The PATRIOT Act or The Military Commissions Act.

Second, the supposed "risk" or "threat" of his window decal is based upon the premise that it obstructs his view. How do they reach that determination? Did they crawl inside his head and look through his eyes? No. Is there a certain set area that a window decal cannot cover or is it just based on the whims/opinion of the officer writing the citation? Probably the latter. Did they even so much as set inside the driver's seat to check and see how "obstructive" the view was? I doubt it.

It's a completely bogus law based on that premise alone.

Third, back to the fact that no infringement of life and liberty has been carried out, if this kid is in a car accident and injures someone or damages their property (their vehicle) and they can prove that it was because of the decal than they should receive compensation for that reason because their life and liberty was infringed upon and the kid is responsible. But, until that happens, there's no argument that can be made that he has infringed on any body's life or liberty simply by having a decal on his car.

Ding-Ding-Ding, we have a winner! His right to political speech definitely trumps that stupid local ordinance.

And does it look to any of you like his view is obstructed? I think not.

 

[damoncrowe]

FireofLiberty expoused what is sometimes called a general equity law. In other words, a law that is unenforced unless it causes injury. Kind of like the fence around the roof in Deuteronomy. No penalty for not having it, but could be charged with negligent homicide if death occurs, etc.

 

[kgiese]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This child should have been taught all 1.2 million US laws, before ever getting on the road.

What about the Ratio of the entire window to the sticker? Do some cars have smaller windows than others? What about the quality of the glass, or of the rear view mirror? Some rear view mirrors have day night sensors built in? Not all glass is manufactured at the same company. Some glass may even come from foreign countries. Has anyone checked to see if there were harmful emmissions seeping into our out of the vehicle from the glass? What is the distance from the mirror to the window? Is his vision as good as the next guys, what about his ability to control the vehicle, was he using drugs prescription or illegal, what is his IQ? How does the sun or for that matter other light objects and reflective objects refract through the window? Does this cause interior heating that could effect the driver in an adverse way? or could it harm a passenger? Did he have the rear view mirror adjusted at the proper angle or for that matter his seat adjusted so he could see the mirror. The seat may come into play or be a larger factor than either the sticker, window, mirror, or driver? Was there a radio or cell phone? Food or drink in the car? Other distractions? He may have had something on the dash that could slide causing him to lose focus on the road. Was he even looking in the, said rear view mirror? If he wasn't and assuming you pulled him over from behind how did he know you were there? I think a fix it would have been a better answer, especially in these hard times. Not everyone's paycheck is derived from taxes and fines levied on its people.

Thank God that you live in a city where the major crime is a political sticker.

p.s. After looking at the photo there are some heating elements that may also block his view.

 

[damoncrowe]

He shoulda' told them that he did not even look behind him when he was driving. Never look back man.

 

[PeacePlan]

If it were in the rear window and he has proper mirrors on each side of his vehicle I think he can win.

How about a van with no windows just a door in the back - is the door blocking his view?

I think if he has the mirrors a good lawyer may win?