"Felony With a Vehicle"

bluerooster

bluerooster

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
2,074
Display Name
Display name:
shorty
At first glance what does a conviction for "Felony with a vehicle" bring to mind?
 
Hit and Run resulting in a death or serious injury...
Hauling dope
4th DUI...

Lots of things right of the to
p of my head...
 
If the perp is male, the need to check the tail pipe or fuel tank inlet pipe for bodily fluids?
 
In North Carolina we have Felony Death With Vehicle and Felony Serious Injury With a Vehicle. You need to be the proximate cause of the death/serious injury and driving while impaired.
 
Here, in this state, Felony with a vehicle, is the charge for a 4th offense. Whether it be a moving, or non-moving violation.
Actually, any 4th conviction, can result in a felony charge. A 4th conviction of jaywalking can be prosecuted as a felony, and upon conviction,
carry a sentence of 5 years in jail, along with probation.
So, a person can get a conviction of "Felony with a vehicle" for a 4th violation of the seatbelt law. Or failure to have insurance,
But the conviction shows up on the DMV report as "felony with a vehicle". Even though the crime was simply a fourth offense for
driving without wearing a seatbelt. Which causes all sorts of troubles with the FAA, and 2nd amendment rights, and the ability to vote,
and.... So the offending person is now a convicted felon. and has hurt no-one, not had any DUI, or any drug or alcohol related offense,
not robbed anyone, and pretty much is a productive member of society. Except they just don't like to be told by the govt. that they must wear seatbelt for their own safety.
 
In WA, it includes stuff like hit and run (with injury), vehicular assault/homicide, eluding police, and my guess is the new felony DUI statutes.
 
deonb said:
bluerooster lives in GA. But I cannot find any evidence of that law. E.g. here are the GA seatbelt laws and penalties. Since 2008 the 4th DWI is indeed a felony, but that only applies to DWI.
Click to expand...
It is not at all uncommon for people in the criminal process to be mistaken about exactly what they are being charged with. That's one reason why the answer to many questions we see about the effect of a court event on FAA reporting requirements is, "I don't know unless I see all the paperwork."
 
Politicians

ve·hi·cle
ˈvēək(ə)l,ˈvēˌhik(ə)l/
noun
noun: vehicle; plural noun: vehicles
  1. 1.​
    a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.
    synonyms:means of transport, conveyance, motor vehicle
    "a stolen vehicle"
  2. 2.​
    a thing used to express, embody, or fulfill something.
    "I use paint as a vehicle for my ideas"
 
I do think it's stupid, but the law is there, not following it has consequences. Quite a simple concept to understand for most.
 
Sac Arrow said:
So, you see nothing wrong with sending someone to prison for five years for not wearing their seatbelt four consecutive times?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, we're talking hypothetically because there's no evidence that's ever happened. I don't see any inherent problem with it. If society deems seatbelt wearing to be very important, it seems appropriate that society might decide that folks with a demonstrated desire not to comply should be severely punished. We're talking about a fourth conviction, hypothetically, which is not trivial.
 
Totally insane to punish someone with such prejudice for something of this nature if this were actually to happen...
 
Lindberg said:
Just to be clear, we're talking hypothetically because there's no evidence that's ever happened. I don't see any inherent problem with it. If society deems seatbelt wearing to be very important, it seems appropriate that society might decide that folks with a demonstrated desire not to comply should be severely punished. We're talking about a fourth conviction, hypothetically, which is not trivial.
Click to expand...

I think you and I have very different world views. If I understand you correctly, any failure to demonstrate blind obedience to the government should be met with harsh consequences. In other words, it's not about the consequence of your actions themselves, it's that you willingly disobeyed a directive.

That's a rule I lived by in the military, and that's fine, I agreed to it. But to see that kind of Stalinist doctrine as a civilian, I feel like the war has already been lost.
 
What it brings to mind . . .

my wish that yakking on a cellphone while driving was a felony. I'm so damn sick of drivers being unpredictable, being non-responsive at lights and intersections, drifting into adjacent lanes as if uncertain which lane they want to drive in, running over animals they could have avoided if paying attention, running into the back of other vehicles . . . especially motorcycles, and just generally having impaired or completely absent situational awareness. It's against the law in CA to drive with a cellphone planted in ear but apparently so many people do it that LEO's just ignore it . . . from what I can see. It doesn't appear to be enforced. I see it everywhere and constantly. I really would make the second offense punishable with the electric chair if I were running things. It would definitely be classed a "Felony with a Vehicle."

Along with . . . blowing cigarette smoke out the window so it pollutes the air of those following behind. They hang their arms with the cigarette out the window so everyone around can enjoy the toxins and godawful smell.

And too, polluting the atmosphere with racket from boomboxes with wheels. That's mostly kids I guess. I'd make that a misdemeanor.
 
MikeS said:
What it brings to mind . . .



Along with . . . blowing cigarette smoke out the window so it pollutes the air of those following behind. They hang their arms with the cigarette out the window so everyone around can enjoy the toxins and godawful smell.

And too, polluting the atmosphere with racket from boomboxes with wheels. That's mostly kids I guess. I'd make that a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...


Yeah, they smoke but don't want the stink inside their vehicle. I never could understand that.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I think you and I have very different world views. If I understand you correctly, any failure to demonstrate blind obedience to the government should be met with harsh consequences. In other words, it's not about the consequence of your actions themselves, it's that you willingly disobeyed a directive.

That's a rule I lived by in the military, and that's fine, I agreed to it. But to see that kind of Stalinist doctrine as a civilian, I feel like the war has already been lost.
Click to expand...
So...what are you doing to change the seat belt laws that you find so stupid?

If you're working to change the laws, fine. If not, you're simply a common criminal for not following them.
 
Look. I wear my seatbelt. It's a great idea to wear it. I encourage everyone to wear it. I don't want to discourage anyone from wearing it. I'm an advocate.

I can support seatbelt laws to the extent it represents protection of other people. You could argue one can better control a careening vehicle while strapped in. I can accept that. I'm opposed to laws that are strictly for the pretext of preserving ones self.
 
I grew up down a dirt road near a town nobody knows. If anyone is independant minded and doesn't like being told what to do it's me. I would likely be in prison for the things we got away with if caught now.

So I just don't do any of those things anymore.

And I do as I'm told. Ironic when you think about it.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I think you and I have very different world views. If I understand you correctly, any failure to demonstrate blind obedience to the government should be met with harsh consequences. In other words, it's not about the consequence of your actions themselves, it's that you willingly disobeyed a directive.

That's a rule I lived by in the military, and that's fine, I agreed to it. But to see that kind of Stalinist doctrine as a civilian, I feel like the war has already been lost.
Click to expand...
Blind obedience? Stalinism? We're not talking about oppressive dictates from a supreme dictator, we're talking about laws passed by democratically-elected legislators in accordance with our constitutional republican form of government. If you don't like the laws, work to change them. But yeah, in general, in a democracy, the demos gets to make the rules.
 
Lindberg said:
Blind obedience? Stalinism? We're not talking about oppressive dictates from a supreme dictator, we're talking about laws passed by democratically-elected legislators in accordance with our constitutional republican form of government. If you don't like the laws, work to change them. But yeah, in general, in a democracy, the demos gets to make the rules.
Click to expand...

But if you disregard for a moment the democratic process to which these laws have been passed (which, by the way is fairly un-democratic, I never get to vote on these things) and step back and look, the end result is pretty damned socialist, in my opinion. I think there was a time when the system "worked", but that time has long passed and the whole legislative process has become recursively self-serving.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So...what are you doing to change the seat belt laws that you find so stupid?

If you're working to change the laws, fine. If not, you're simply a common criminal for not following them.
Click to expand...

Totally useless advice. Nobody here has enough bribe money to get even a dog waking law changed in our corrupted system of law, let alone a major law.

Plus, roughly 3000 laws were voted on last year.

But over 30,000 new agency "policies" or "guidance" documents with no votes and done completely arbitrarily by various agencies were created in the same timeframe.

That continues to accelerate.

The massive bureaucracy creates now ten times the number of laws than are voted upon by the democratic process.

Unsustainable. And certainly not an environment where one should advise others to fight it.

You get to pay for their lawyers and yours simultaneously.
 
Zeldman said:
Yeah, they smoke but don't want the stink inside their vehicle. I never could understand that.
Click to expand...

When I used to detail cars, the smokers would all b---h about all the residue/smell in their car. We'd clean it out (nasty yellow residue everywhere...) and as soon as they went to drive away-yep, light one up.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top