Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 305: Where's the beef? With the police.

(+) Yeah! (+)

KamikazePotato posted...

https://twitter.com/theserfstv/status/1271617214689325056

This is incredible. Lol the burn at the end.

---

Can someone tell Corrik you can consume alcohol at home, for cheaper, and not "have to" be a drunk driver?

---

KamikazePotato posted...

https://twitter.com/theserfstv/status/1271617214689325056

You can just tell he was hoping to win the argument, only to be upset this debater was far more knowledgeable.

"Guys call the police, he's PAINTING ON A BUILDING!!!!"

---

Corrik7 posted...

The problem I always had with singling out texters is that really it is any distracted drivers cause wrecks. Which encompasses such a huge swath of things.

I mean, some states now cite you if you look at your GPS on your phone when driving. It's hard to draw the exact line in my opinion on it.

Distracted drivers period are an issue though.

GPS should be fine.
the line should just be if you're doing something on your phone that demands your visual attention and isn't directly related to the driving.

StealThisSheen posted...

It's not something to just handwave as a "shitty thing to do."

it's not handwaving to call it a shitty thing to do, it's being realistic that humans are complicated.

you can be a good person and still do shitty things. if you talk about a person then you're talking about their character, their being, in total. that is separate from an action they have committed. there is a certain point where a pattern of behavior will reflect on an individual but where that line is will vary based on the offense, the scale, and the rationale.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

If literally everyone here except red and maybe Wang is fully aware of the fact that Corrik is a worthless piece of shit, why are we still talking at him?

some of you guys ain't ones to talk on this.
We literally just spent half the last topic on a subject brought up to troll him and then, somehow, progressed seemingly nowhere in the argument. maybe it's just him being stubborn. but i'm gonna go on a limb and also include that some people arguing in this dozen to one spat aren't doing it in "good faith" as it's often said around here, they just don't like him and just want to flame and troll him before preening around acting superior. there is zero intent to argue, just more intent to add to the noise. if half a topic gets spent and there's little to no progress, something is clearly wrong with the conversation you're having. at best it means you're talking around each other and gotta clarify some basics. at worst, you're being a bunch of dicks. don't know where you fall. but that's basically the dumpster fire the last topic was.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Because there is literally no area in the world where you HAVE to do this.

Where the hell did this "I MUST go to the bar, I have no choice!" stuff from you and people like SephG come from

I don't have to go to the bar. I don't go to the bar. I have basically very little friends now because of it, but that's fine for me.

When I was young and felt bulletproof, I didn't think things pertained to me. I felt like I could drink and drive better than a Nascar pro if he challenged me. My friends were at the bar. If you wanted to have friends, if you wanted to meet girls, you went to the bar. It was as simple as that. You aren't meeting people otherwise besides maybe a Myspace hook up here and there. *Shrug*. My family all drink and drove basically every day. It was pretty ingrained not to be a big deal and as long as you drove fine it wasn't a big deal. Every single person at the bar every night was drinking and driving down to literally almost every last person there. Hell even the bartenders many nights.

I was young. I felt invincible, and I wasn't. And it was dangerous. I could have lost my life or caused others to lose theirs easily back then. I was very careless before my first DUI. Very. And I totally plan to try and stop my kid and my fiancees kid from following in those footsteps by having them understand the consequences first. The video of the 3 girls from canonsburg or whatever who basically snap chatted their voyage drinking all night and all died at age 21 hit hard also like 5 years back.

So, I adjusted. Tried the hey live the same life but adjust it thing. Realized on the second DUI that plans can go awry.

On the third DUI, much later and much more recent I was leaving a wedding. I barely drink anymore at that point. Almost never at bars without rides. I felt I was fine. Everyone thought I was fine. The bartender counted my drinks to not allow me to drink over 1 per hour. Apparently I wasn't fine. Now I just don't drink at all outside of home unless staying at someone's house after or my fiancee is going to pick me up and has my car.

*Shrug*

I don't think feeling you have to go to the bar to be apart of the social scene when you are young is especially an unknown concept.

I mean, I wouldn't have met my fiancee or had my child if I hadn't lived that life either. And, I also didn't grow up in the household or area maybe you necessarily did either.

I have had a lot of growing up from what I felt was normal life to my life now, bud.

---

Wanglicious posted...

We literally just spent half the last topic on a subject brought up to troll him

not sure why you keep spouting this bullshit rhetoric. actually, i'm not sure why you're commenting at all, since you admitted that you only "glanced" at the argument in the previous topic.

the point was that corrik went "100% JUSTIFIED THERE IS NO GRAY AREA" about the guy with the taser who ran away and was shot, being his usual lawful neutral self. people then went "why do you say your DUI punishment was too harsh? why not be consistent and also apply this lawful neutrality when you yourself get punished, instead of just when other people get punished?" sure, you can have questions about the merit of that particular argument, but it's not like anyone went "LOL CORRIK HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH DUIS" out of the blue to troll him, like you're making it sound. it was a direct response to the debate that was going on.

---

taking just some stuff said in this topic, from the first page...

• he's right when he says bars don't really care.
• there are plenty of bars that are just drive in only essentially. no other transport, including car services, are readily available.
• he agrees that it's wrong.

...so is the issue just "why go to a bar at all?" after that?
as this seems to be admission that it's morally wrong to do but also explaining why it happens. that yes it's a shitty thing to do but people do it because ___.

checking the last topic...

• losing your license for a DUI is a flawed system. (true)
• ...sniping drivers. (...seriously dude, you're the right winger in a part of PA that likes guns, don't make everyone else look like they've got a better knowledge of firearms than you on this.)

seem to be the general positions through all the crap in there putting bets on him killing people, wanting him shot, etc. some of the arguments against him don't make any sense at all from a practical view either, so many insist on removing a license for a DUI while ignoring the reality that a significant amount of the country needs a car for a living. something that would affect the poor far more, which he brings up. Jakyl and Hero were the only two that addressed that. there's not a lot wrong being said here. yeah the sniping stuff is dumb and sure if you're trying to correlate his stance with the recent Atlanta shooting you can draw some parallels, but if you don't even represent his position properly to begin with anything you draw is gonna be a mess.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

not sure why you keep spouting this bullshit rhetoric. actually, i'm not sure why you're commenting at all, since you admitted that you only "glanced" at the argument in the previous topic.

uhhh it's half the topic dude.
and surprise, i read the topic more in between the time i said that and this because i was tired of seeing that be the entire subject matter while still escalating somehow.

and this ain't the first time the topic got brought up and yes, it does seemingly get brought up randomly or through the loosest of tangents. usually it goes away again in a few but this time around it stuck for the rest of the topic and into this one, escalating the whole way because people don't seem to know his actual position but are perfectly fine assuming they do or gaslight him in jest.

---

You'd think the fact that you need a car would deter you from doing something reckless like driving while drunk. Especially if you're the type who thinks the law is absolute(Until it hurts you, anyway).

Just like those people who get their guns taken away from using it in an incredibly idiotic way.

"BUT I NEED MY GUN TO-"

Yeah, that's why you shouldn't have juggled with it and shot someone by mistake(Replace juggling with a more realistic stupid and dangerous way to misuse a gun if you'd like).

If you think not bending the knee the cops should be a death sentence, why are you suddenly so concerned with not being able to drive a car. You can still walk, which is a lot more than can be said for people who "resisted arrest" because they were gasping for air.

It seems like that's the stance of a lot of right wingers. "Obey the law. But if it hurts me then it's not fair."

Also yes holy fucking shit "Just snipe the guy during a high speed chase!" At that point you're either trolling or unfit to use a butter knife. It's even more fucking idiotic than "Why can't police just shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand?"

---

there's a lot to deter you from driving drunk. you need a car, it's against the law, you don't want to literally kill people, you don't want to die, if you're going to a bar to socialize then you want to keep socializing with them another day, etc.

but people do it anyway, fully aware that it's wrong. even in NYC you'll find a lot of that type in bars despite the fact that there are car services you can use. in a more rural or suburban spot where that doesn't exist, i imagine that'd be the norm. rural more so since there's a certain point where it's like you've got dozens of miles of empty road.

tried to figure it out over the years and ended up coming to the conclusion that if you try to think of it logically you aren't going to get anywhere. it's clearly wrong, it's logically a horrible idea, so if you still do it anyway it's going to be a mix of 1) culture, 2) stupidity (especially for younger people, invincibility aura's a thing), 3) emotional reasoning.

---

If you're a repeated drunk driving offender and your financial livelihood relies on you driving, then you've forgone the right to that source of income and are going to have to rearrange your own failures.

You cannot even begin to imagine how little respect I have for repeated drunk driving offendors. The reason I felt no need to respond to his woes about needing that car to work is because I don't care. A repeated drunk driver to me is no different from repeated attempted manslaughter, they are the same calibur of individual.

---

Wanglicious posted...

but people do it anyway, fully aware that it's wrong.

So they deserve to be debenifited as a result.

Defund drunk drivers.

ADDAB.

---

Dark Young Link posted...

Also yes holy fucking shit "Just snipe the guy during a high speed chase!" At that point you're either trolling or unfit to use a butter knife. It's even more fucking idiotic than "Why can't police just shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand?"

yeah, that wasn't "people trolling and flaming corrik" or "people misunderstanding corrik's argument." that's just a pathetic attempt at trolling by corrik because i know he's not THAT stupid.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

If you're a repeated drunk driving offender and your financial livelihood relies on you driving, then you've forgone the right to that source of income and are going to have to rearrange your own failures.

You cannot even begin to imagine how little respect I have for repeated drunk driving offendors. The reason I felt no need to respond to his woes about needing that car to work is because I don't care. A repeated drunk driver to me is no different from repeated attempted manslaughter, they are the same calibur of individual.

I struggle with the 2nd paragraph because obviously drunk driving is a horrible act and doing it repeatedly is significantly worse, but alcoholism is a brutal disease and people like that need serious treatment. The fact that they repeatedly do it just shows that they cant stop and have lost control of their actions.

Now there is a major difference between the college kid who thinks he is invincible and just thinks hes going to make it home no prob and kills someone, versus the person who is gripped by addiction and cant stop without a massive external intervention. I dont have any respect for the former. The latter is harmful to society, but its more pity that i feel than disdain

---

the guns vs car thing can sorta help understand why there's reform needed. guns are constitutionally protected, cars aren't. but people outside cities with major transportation can live without a gun in most professions, they can't live without a car. a car is a bigger necessity but it's easier to take your right away from using it. as a result people will be faced with either driving without a license or being unemployed, which will end up meaning more crime. this disproportionately hurts the lower and working classes far more so it's totally the wrong direction to go in. you should want a different punishment than outright removal.

corrik mentioned that tech is catching up at least, with DUIs resulting in car modifications that force you to breath into it before working. that's a good middle ground to work with, basically forcing you to be sober while also allowing you to drive. that hurts the fewest people there.


---

https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/1272223385532145673

GOP Senate is ruling out ending qualified immunity and going as far as calling it a "poison pill."

---

iiaattgg posted...

Now there is a major difference between the college kid who thinks he is invincible and just thinks hes going to make it home no prob and kills someone, versus the person who is gripped by addiction and cant stop without a massive external intervention. I dont have any respect for the former. The latter is harmful to society, but its more pity that i feel than disdain

whoops, should've included addiction too. that's definitely an issue. i wouldn't assume this addiction is to alcohol either, there's a certain dopamine hit you get from socializing with people and if it's going to be at a bar then your addiction is just to social drinking, to being around people in that environment, etc. that'll cross over multiple fields (e.g., culture of meeting this way while driving, emotional reasoning of "I want to be there," addiction to the environment).

---

Wanglicious posted...

...sniping drivers. (...seriously dude, you're the right winger in a part of PA that likes guns, don't make everyone else look like they've got a better knowledge of firearms than you on this.)

I'm not really pro-gun, Wang.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

people then went "why do you say your DUI punishment was too harsh?

And this never happened is the problem. I never said it was too harsh lol. I said a clerical error happened that made it misgraded higher. I showed you the sentencing chart just last topic.

---

So if you got rid of qualified immunity... You couldn't sue the state or department but the officer himself instead???

---

Everything hurts the poor more than it does the rich. Because the rich can bribe the right people to get out of punishment. It's why when a celebrity gets caught doing hard drugs they spend at most a day in jail and mostly get off if they promise to go to rehab. Where as I would spend at least a decade if I was caught smoking weed.

Or, again, in the case of rape.

Some piece of shit rapes an unconscious woman, gets arrested, but also gets freed that same day because he(Or his parents) has bail money.

He was found guilty, the procecutors recommended a sentence of 6 months.

He got 6 months, and only served half because of "good behavior".

Do you think for one minute that someone who didn't have money/parents with money would be treated so softly?

---

xp1337 posted...

GOP Senate is ruling out ending qualified immunity and going as far as calling it a "poison pill."

Well yeah. They know most of them would be in jail if they got rid of that.

---

Dark Young Link posted...

Everything hurts the poor more than it does the rich. Because the rich can bribe the right people to get out of punishment. It's why when a celebrity gets caught doing hard drugs they spend at most a day in jail and mostly get off if they promise to go to rehab. Where as I would spend at least a decade if I was caught smoking weed.

Or, again, in the case of rape.

Some piece of shit rapes an unconscious woman, gets arrested, but also gets freed that same day because he(Or his parents) has bail money.

He was found guilty, the procecutors recommended a sentence of 6 months.

He got 6 months, and only served half because of "good behavior".

Do you think for one minute that someone who didn't have money/parents with money would be treated so softly?

1. The rich have more money for better defense. I tried to show Forceful that with his hypothetical about sleeping in the car DUI situation, but he didn't seem too interested. Thus, rich tend to get off more and to negotiate better circumstances.

However,

2. I don't get why you think that mandatory rulings should also benefit the rich more also. Like, if you have a device that works specifically to stop drinking and driving and allows the poor to continue to work and get around to maintain their life for them and their family, why would you not want to use that instead? Why continue the economic disparity gap you already alluded to in 1 and double down with it on 2 also?

Edit: Also, I think conditioning people to drive their cars and not drink / forcing them into the situation so they learn better ideas is a bit better than hey just don't drive for a set time. Drink the whole time. Then let's just give you your license back and see what happens, yeehaw!

---

I dont want this to come across negatively as thats not the tone im shooting for, but i do want to say that blocking a person in this topic who was constantly wanting to fight people instead of listening to other view points and presenting your own really helped me see everything in this topic in a much better light. Now that is my character flaw that i was allowing his issues affect how i was viewing other people in here, but i just am making the observation that one super toxic person can really infect everyone else when things get passionate in topics like this. I have a lot of respect for all the people in here and i enjoy reading the things you all say and appreciate the different perspectives. It helps me get a more well rounded view point and colors in my blind spots

---

People in here really stanning for prison time in the case of multiple DUIs

We need FEWER people in prison, not more

Prisons are bad
---

We also need fewer people who think drunk driving is okay in the streets.

Private prisons profiting off more people in them IS a problem that needs to be addressed, but people who constantly DUI can go fuck themselves. This isn't something mostly harmless like some kid smoking weed.

---

but we need more people who think drunk driving is ok in the sheets
---

Driving while smoking also is a serious risk and repeat offenders of that also should be diverted into treatment

Im hoping that the percent of people who drink/smoke/harder drugs and then drive out of just straight stupidity/immaturity fades away as this generation seems to be more serious about not doing it than previous ones. The percent that are legitimate addicts though is always going to be a struggle. Hopefully we can win that fight in the long run

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

but we need more people who think drunk driving is ok in the sheets

A+

---

Dont have sex drunk though unless its been explicitly consented to while sober
---

Jakyl25 posted...

People in here really stanning for prison time in the case of multiple DUIs

We need FEWER people in prison, not more

Prisons are bad

agreed on this.
the goal is rehabilitation, not punishment.
now there's some cases i can totally understand punishment as the priority for and some cases where i can't disagree with a bullet to the back of the head being the best resolution. but as a general principle if you can establish methods for rehab, you take it.

and DYL - yeah, the rich get away with more. but the issue isn't that you get away with more, it's that you're disproportionately hurting them more. you want to talk drug crime, sure: yes the rich got away with more and you know who got hurt more with multiple offenses? poor people, usually minorities. it's a failed policy structure that only hurts people, especially the ones it's trying to help. DUIs would fall under the same category here as it's the working, lower, and middle class that needs to drive the most. you would be inflicting punishment on people who need those cars to live and a flippant "oh well, should've thought of that first!" is the same argument that got us to shitty policies in the first place in a variety of other fields. it is not focusing on the underlying aspects of why someone would do this, it is not focusing on trying to minimize it, it is simply being punitive after the fact as opposed to trying to prevent it from occurring in the first place. prevent the drunk driving, foster a situation where even in more suburban areas it's clear that this is desirable, work on addiction treatment, etc. but don't create more criminals out of policy, that's absolutely the wrong direction to go.

xp1337 posted...

GOP Senate is ruling out ending qualified immunity and going as far as calling it a "poison pill."

unsurprising.
that's definitely a state level measure that needs to happen.


---

Corrik7 posted...

. I tried to show Forceful that with his hypothetical about sleeping in the car DUI situation, but he didn't seem too interested.

My point is that if literally all else failed I would sooner sleep in the car than drive it.

But my point was ALSO that I would never get into that position in the first place.

You were only in that situation because you did not plan ahead. In short, you fucked up and did not take sufficient precautions.

.

But then you obviously learned your lesson and that was the ONLY time in your life that you found yourself in such a situation. Right?
Oh..

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

My point is that if literally all else failed I would sooner sleep in the car than drive it.

But my point was ALSO that I would never get into that position in the first place.

You were only in that situation because you did not plan ahead. In short, you fucked up and did not take sufficient precautions.

.

But then you obviously learned your lesson and that was the ONLY time in your life that you found yourself in such a situation. Right?
Oh..

It's so funny listening to your holier than thou attitude when compared to the first thing they tell you in rehab. "There is no such thing as a foolproof plan when you drink."

Lol. I am humored. Don't mind me.

That said, and I pointed out you would be exactly in the same place as someone who chose to drive. A DUI if found. You were the one who started babbling on about jury trials and shit.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That said, and I pointed out you would be exactly in the same place as someone who chose to drive. A DUI if found. You were the one who started babbling on about jury trials and shit.

You pointed out that they *could* book you for a DUI for sleeping in your back seat based upon the broad terminology of being "in control" of a vehicle.

They would not necessarily do so in practice, but yes, that is true.

But then it's STILL your fault for not making arrangements beforehand. And you should STILL prefer to get a DUI for sleeping in a car than ACTUALLY DRIVING A CAR WHILE DRUNK. Because one of those is a shitty way to get a DUI and the other is one of the worst things you could do full stop.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

You pointed out that they *could* book you for a DUI for sleeping in your back seat based upon the broad terminology of being "in control" of a vehicle.

They would not necessarily do so in practice, but yes, that is true.

But then it's STILL your fault for not making arrangements beforehand. And you should STILL prefer to get a DUI for sleeping in a car than ACTUALLY DRIVING A CAR WHILE DRUNK. Because one of those is a shitty way to get a DUI and the other is one of the worst things you could do full stop.

Bullshit they won't do it lol. You don't know many people with DUIs do you.

Arrangements can fall through, bud. Especially when you add in a mind altering drug to the mix.

---

you'd totally get charged with one, yeah. could probably get out of it with proper recordings of what's going on but if you lack that, expect it. that just says more of our fucked up system than not. if you're in the car and NOT operating it, you shouldn't be getting anything, that way drivers won't have to choose between a higher chance of being caught vs. a greater chance of a car accident. so that's one reform to be agreed on.

and the fact that he's not doing it now and identifies the problems of it does say he learned. he just didn't learn immediately, didn't learn at the time. which... is honestly common for this sort of thing, DUI or no. like say he had gotten away with it without ever getting a DUI - that doesn't make anything better. the DUI is immaterial to the argument of drunk driving.

---

Wanglicious posted...

you'd totally get charged with one, yeah. could probably get out of it with proper recordings of what's going on but if you lack that, expect it. that just says more of our fucked up system than not. if you're in the car and NOT operating it, you shouldn't be getting anything, that way drivers won't have to choose between a higher chance of being caught vs. a greater chance of a car accident. so that's one reform to be agreed on.

and the fact that he's not doing it now and identifies the problems of it does say he learned. he just didn't learn immediately, didn't learn at the time. which... is honestly common for this sort of thing, DUI or no. like say he had gotten away with it without ever getting a DUI - that doesn't make anything better. the DUI is immaterial to the argument of drunk driving.

You actually probably won't get out of it.

I know a dude who got a DUI sleeping in his turned off car with his keys in the back seat in his own driveway. Lol. And it stuck. He spent a lot of money fighting that to lose.

It's debatable if the sticking your keys in your gas cap helps your case. Our one instructor who did classes said he has seen tens of thousands of people over the years for DUIs. Says he has seen it all. People getting DUIs for sleeping in vehicle with keys thrown outside the vehicle. Sleeping in back seat with keys in has cap. People already out of their vehicle and walking into their house.

Idk if I believed all his stuff he said, but I do know getting caught sleeping in a vehicle while drunk is gonna net you a DUI almost all the time unless you got lucky with a cop.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Bullshit they won't do it lol. You don't know many people with DUIs do you.

Arrangements can fall through, bud. Especially when you add in a mind altering drug to the mix.

Ok so if you make the wrong choice under a mind altering drug that puts others at risk, do you deserve to die yes or no?


---

Corrik7 posted...

Bullshit they won't do it lol. You don't know many people with DUIs do you.

That's right, because in the circles I run in we have things called designated drivers. Or more often than not if we're having a get together (new years, etc) it's at a house instead of a bar and it's made explicitly clear that people can stay until the morning if they need to.

Wanglicious posted...

and the fact that he's not doing it now and identifies the problems of it does say he learned.

And that's great. But I would hope that if I had to learn such a lesson I would feel appropriately ashamed of myself and would not be blaming my actions on the culture around drinking and the systematic flaws to how DUIs works.

But whatever, It's not not something that will ever affect me personally and there are more important concerns in the world than Corrik's DUIs.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You actually probably won't get out of it.

I know a dude who got a DUI sleeping in his turned off car with his keys in the back seat in his own driveway. Lol. And it stuck. He spent a lot of money fighting that to lose.

It's debatable if the sticking your keys in your gas cap helps your case. Our one instructor who did classes said he has seen tens of thousands of people over the years for DUIs. Says he has seen it all. People getting DUIs for sleeping in vehicle with keys thrown outside the vehicle. Sleeping in back seat with keys in has cap. People already out of their vehicle and walking into their house.

Idk if I believed all his stuff he said, but I do know getting caught sleeping in a vehicle while drunk is gonna net you a DUI almost all the time unless you got lucky with a cop.

that's some serious bullshit of government just looking for a paycheck. if you aren't driving under the influence and are not at any risk to drive then wtf. like do you need to have a breath test to operate your machine in there to get away with that? just a dumb policy.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Ok so if you make the wrong choice under a mind altering drug that puts others at risk, do you deserve to die yes or no?

I think you are conflating deserve to die with your death being a reasonable outcome to a situation.

---

Wanglicious posted...

that's some serious bullshit of government just looking for a paycheck. if you aren't driving under the influence and are not at any risk to drive then wtf. like do you need to have a breath test to operate your machine in there to get away with that? just a dumb policy.

The law just requires you to be in a car you can possess. So unless they literally can't find the keys or the car literally can't start (something that wouldn't have happened since like a battery dying). They still have you. You don't even have to be over BAC to be given a DUI (a lot of people don't realize that).

https://www.callnow.law/blog/2019/05/can-you-get-a-dui-if-your-bac-is-below-the-legal-limit/

DUI laws are tough cookies. And, there is a lot of wiggle room to charge you regardless. That's why I laugh at the best laid plans and such. I had a plan once. It went awry. Any plan can.

---

Inviso posted...

Sorry if the topic title isn't great. Been half an hour and no Jakyl-quality topic arose.

It's strong, don't sell yourself short

Wanglicious posted...

if you aren't driving under the influence and are not at any risk to drive then wtf.

If you're alone in the vehicle, with the keys in the car, you are at a risk to drive. And may have been driving before the police arrived. While sleeping in the car is certainly more safe than driving home, police will assume you had intent to drive unless they have good reason to believe otherwise.

---

Driverless cars will hopefully solve this
---

Do you think it's a coincidence that minutes after you post that, red sox posts a poll topic expressing the desire to ban driverless cars

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Do you think it's a coincidence that minutes after you post that, red sox posts a poll topic expressing the desire to ban driverless cars

Of course not, the poll was directly inspired by his post.

---

I have red sox blocked to the purpose of not knowing that.

---

why would we want to ban self driving cars.


---

If there are no more traffic violations, that cuts into police funding
---