PDA

View Full Version : Police don’t have to witness speeding to issue a speeding ticket




aGameOfThrones
02-11-2014, 03:57 AM
A woman whose car landed in a snowbank as she was exiting a Michigan freeway was slapped with a speeding ticket by a police officer that didn’t witness the incident and arrived ten minutes after it occurred.

Kris Matthys was on her way to work when she exited interstate 696 in Warren, Michigan. The roads were covered in several inches of snow and Matthys, like many other drivers in the state that day, wound up losing control of her car and landed in snow that had piled up between the freeway and the exit ramp. She told The Detroit News, “I ended up sideways, and the way I was sitting, I was afraid I’d get hit by other cars, so I called 911 and told them I wasn’t hurt, but that my car was in a dangerous position.”

A few minutes later a tow truck and police officer arrived. When the officer asked for her license, registration, and insurance, Matthys figured that he was getting the information to file an incident report. Instead, she told WDIV Local 4, the officer issued her a speeding ticket and told her, "’Well you didn't hit anything or anybody, but you're getting a ticket.’" She insisted that she was driving with the flow of traffic and it was the weather conditions, not her velocity that caused her to end up off the road. Matthys said, “I was shocked…Getting a ticket was the last thing I expected. The cop wasn’t even there. How does he know I was driving too fast?”

According to Michigan State Police Lieutenant Michael Shaw, an officer can still determine if a motorist was driving too fast and can issue a ticket, even without witnessing the car spinning out. Lt. Shaw told The Detroit News, “We try to explain this to citizens all the time: If you’re driving down the freeway and you go through a certain spot just fine, but I wipe out and lose control, then I violated basic speed law.” The lieutenant added, “Probably 1,000 other cars were able to go onto that exit with no problem, but she wiped out, so she’s in violation. You can’t blame the snowbank.”

The citation carries a $90 fine and two points on a driver’s license, plus Matthys had a $100 charge from the tow truck.

Ms. Matthys feels the ticket was issued unfairly and she plans to fight it in court. “I’d like to know how a police officer who wasn’t even there was able to determine I was driving too fast because I got stuck in a snowbank,” said Matthys. “Does that mean if I get stuck in the snow pulling out of my driveway, I was also driving too fast? It’s ridiculous.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/police-don-t-have-to-witness-speeding-to-issue-a-speeding-ticket--as-woman-discovered-235230099.html

FindLiberty
02-11-2014, 07:17 AM
Think it's bad now? It will be worse after the ubiquitous Robo-Cop finally replaces any lingering memory of Andy Griffith of Mayberry.

http://tvland.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/andy_griffith_show/photos/Barney-Andy.jpg

tod evans
02-11-2014, 08:03 AM
The DA will amend the charges to a C&I, then she'll really be fucked...

Root
02-11-2014, 08:05 AM
She asked for the tickets.

donnay
02-11-2014, 08:10 AM
Support your local police department. :rolleyes:

DamianTV
02-11-2014, 08:14 AM
All of the Revenue with none of the Effort.

cjm
02-11-2014, 08:17 AM
She asked for the tickets.

Agreed.

In a utopian libertarian society, she harmed no one and therefor committed no crime and should get no ticket. But in a functioning libertarian-leaning world that includes government roads, people are going to get tickets for losing control of their vehicles.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 08:20 AM
Agreed.

In a utopian libertarian society, she harmed no one and therefor committed no crime and should get no ticket. But in a functioning libertarian-leaning world that includes government roads, people are going to get tickets for losing control of their vehicles.

Root was joking. You're actually serious here?

cjm
02-11-2014, 08:26 AM
Root was joking. You're actually serious here?

Comparing between a utopian society and reality? yes. Think of losing control of the car as a negligent discharge where no one gets hurt. Outside of the utopian world, reckless behavior will get you a ticket. I'm not saying it should be that way, but that's the way it's always been with driving. When weather conditions dictate, you need to drive at slower speeds to keep control of your vehicle.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 08:28 AM
Comparing between a utopian society and reality? yes. Think of losing control of the car as a negligent discharge where no one gets hurt. Outside of the utopian world, reckless behavior will get you a ticket. I'm not saying it should be that way, but that's the way it's always been with driving. When weather conditions dictate, you need to drive at slower speeds to keep control of your vehicle.
I don't view a society where there's no punishment unless someone get's hurt as "Utopian." Utopian would be "Nobody ever gets hurt" or "nobody ever gets away with anything." That's not what we ancaps are saying. We live in reality. We know there will be criminals and that people will sometimes be harmed. We still view victimless crimes as exactly that.

cjm
02-11-2014, 08:41 AM
I don't view a society where there's no punishment unless someone get's hurt as "Utopian." Utopian would be "Nobody ever gets hurt" or "nobody ever gets away with anything." That's not what we ancaps are saying. We live in reality. We know there will be criminals and that people will sometimes be harmed. We still view victimless crimes as exactly that.

Well, what do you think of this scenario. A man walks to the middle of a populated town square, blindfolds himself, and then spins around taking six shots from a revolver. Miraculously, no people are hit and no buildings, cars, or other property are hit either. The bullets simply come to rest on the ground somewhere. No person or property were harmed, so no crime.

What I mean by utopian is that the townspeople in this scenario will look at each other and say, "no victim, no crime" and go about their business leaving the blindfolded man alone.

What I mean by reality is that someone is going to initiate force and take that firearm away from him.

Perhaps I'm not a libertarian purist, but maybe libertarian theory isn't well suited to dealing with reckless behavior.

tod evans
02-11-2014, 08:44 AM
Perhaps I'm not a libertarian purist, but maybe libertarian theory isn't well suited to dealing with reckless behavior.

The problem with labels is somebody else is always going to try and define the one you pick....

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 08:47 AM
Support your local police department. :rolleyes:

The idea behind that slogan was to keep the police department LOCAL. ie. NOT federal.

mczerone
02-11-2014, 09:00 AM
Well, what do you think of this scenario. A man walks to the middle of a populated town square, blindfolds himself, and then spins around taking six shots from a revolver. Miraculously, no people are hit and no buildings, cars, or other property are hit either. The bullets simply come to rest on the ground somewhere. No person or property were harmed, so no crime.

What I mean by utopian is that the townspeople in this scenario will look at each other and say, "no victim, no crime" and go about their business leaving the blindfolded man alone.

What I mean by reality is that someone is going to initiate force and take that firearm away from him.

Perhaps I'm not a libertarian purist, but maybe libertarian theory isn't well suited to dealing with reckless behavior.

But that's not analogous to the situation here.

How about this: A woman is waiting for her turn at the gun range. Ten people go through first, each firing a 10 round mag of higher caliber shots than the range is equipped to handle (unbeknownst to them), and then letting the next person in line shoot. When she gets up, she shoots her first 5 rounds just fine. But her 6th round goes through the target, shatters the backstop, and goes into the storage room causing $2000 in damage to some equipment and $5000 in damage to the range setup.

What response is appropriate?

(a) The shooting range fining her a portion of the damages, because she fired the shot - even though others were doing the same before and the range wasn't policing the practice of firing high caliber rounds. Of course the fine is backed by the threat of a warrant, jail, and death if she resists sufficiently.

(b) The shooting range saying "hey, this is costing us money, we need to do better in making sure we're either limiting the rounds fired on our range, or improving our infrastructure to handle the demands of our customers."

or
(c) Fining everyone that they can find, even though their shots didn't cause the damage correctly, but simply because they were breaking the unwritten rules. They were all being "reckless" and should pay!

The only "libertarian" leaning solution is (b).

Here, that would mean that police would do a better job getting people to slow down on interchange ramps when it's snowy. They could do that without tickets, even. Or they could improve infrastructure; I'm sure this ramp wasn't recently plowed or salted. And I'm sure that draining issues aren't carefully monitored, causing standing water/slush to be more likely to freeze in areas cars are likely to be looking for traction (wheel tread divots).

With all the resources poured into road maintenance in Michigan (salting, plowing, repairing potholes, damaged vehicles, towing, police time, resurfacing, etc.), there seems that a private road would find it efficient to install low-temp melting tech (a series of high strength wires with resistance/current calibrated to keep the road surface above 40F interwoven with the rebar).

But hey, without the govt, who will fail to innovate in roads?!?

cjm
02-11-2014, 09:03 AM
Perhaps I'm not a libertarian purist, but maybe libertarian theory isn't well suited to dealing with reckless behavior.

To clarify what I mean by 'reckless behavior' in this statement, I mean reckless behavior that has a reasonable probability of hurting someone else. If the lady spun out on a deserted country road, I would say no victim, no crime, no ticket.

But in this story she said she was driving on an interstate highway "with the flow of traffic" (other cars definitely there) when she lost control. She then reports, “I ended up sideways, and the way I was sitting, I was afraid I’d get hit by other cars, so I called 911 and told them I wasn’t hurt, but that my car was in a dangerous position.”

cjm
02-11-2014, 09:13 AM
But that's not analogous to the situation here.

I wasn't trying to draw an analogy with that scenario, I did that with my first post (negligent discharge). That scenario was to get people thinking about the extremes of "no victim, no crime."

In your analogy, the range is a private range ("we're losing money"). I would have to see the terms of use or contract to know if the lady in your example was liable for damages. I would be surprised if a range stated, "by the way, if you shoot through our backstop and damage anything, you're responsible." But if that's what the contract said, the lady would be liable as per the contract.

ETA: correction, I mentioned the negligent discharge analogy in my second post of this thread.

mczerone
02-11-2014, 09:37 AM
To clarify what I mean by 'reckless behavior' in this statement, I mean reckless behavior that has a reasonable probability of hurting someone else. If the lady spun out on a deserted country road, I would say no victim, no crime, no ticket.

But in this story she said she was driving on an interstate highway "with the flow of traffic" (other cars definitely there) when she lost control. She then reports, “I ended up sideways, and the way I was sitting, I was afraid I’d get hit by other cars, so I called 911 and told them I wasn’t hurt, but that my car was in a dangerous position.”

Even then - it didn't have to be reckless (or even merely negligent) behavior to result in a dangerous situation.

I know the area she spun out in - It was an upward sloping, slightly curved off-ramp. You don't approach an uphill climb going too slow in slick conditions; you could stall out and slide off the road or backwards into traffic behind you. You need as much speed as you can safely maintain before the incline. Sometimes that means that you might hit some ice that pulls you to this side - causing spinouts or hitting the ditch/shoulder.

The fact remains that there are many people who end up spun out or in a ditch that weren't speeding or being negligent. Sometimes things happen unexpectedly despite the best planning and highest level of care. And, conversely, many people driving negligently or recklessly never end up in a ditch or in an accident.

If you want to ticket speeding, negligence, or recklessness, then ticket those observed behaviors. Don't jump to conclusions, and neither should cops.

angelatc
02-11-2014, 09:48 AM
I believe that they will lose if she fights this in court.

They might .... MIGHT..... be able to pull off a ticket for something like going too fast for conditions, but I'm pretty sure there was no flipping way she was going over 65 mph with the weather we've had here.

And the fact that she perhaps did not negotiate an entrance ramp correctly does not mean she was speeding.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 09:58 AM
Well, what do you think of this scenario. A man walks to the middle of a populated town square, blindfolds himself, and then spins around taking six shots from a revolver. Miraculously, no people are hit and no buildings, cars, or other property are hit either. The bullets simply come to rest on the ground somewhere. No person or property were harmed, so no crime.

What I mean by utopian is that the townspeople in this scenario will look at each other and say, "no victim, no crime" and go about their business leaving the blindfolded man alone.

What I mean by reality is that someone is going to initiate force and take that firearm away from him.

Perhaps I'm not a libertarian purist, but maybe libertarian theory isn't well suited to dealing with reckless behavior.

Yeah, I'd consider that a threat. Kind of like if I shot at you and missed, I'd still be responsible. I don't really know what "libertarian theory" is (Since there's more than one such theory) but for me, and I know for Walter Block as well, threatening violence is illegitimate. I wouldn't consider that analogous to driving faster than some arbitrary speed on the road.

angelatc
02-11-2014, 10:01 AM
To clarify what I mean by 'reckless behavior' in this statement, I mean reckless behavior that has a reasonable probability of hurting someone else. If the lady spun out on a deserted country road, I would say no victim, no crime, no ticket.

But in this story she said she was driving on an interstate highway "with the flow of traffic" (other cars definitely there) when she lost control. She then reports, “I ended up sideways, and the way I was sitting, I was afraid I’d get hit by other cars, so I called 911 and told them I wasn’t hurt, but that my car was in a dangerous position.”


I'm not a libertarian purist either, but I don't agree for penalizing people for things that did not hurt anybody.

If she had planted a bomb in a shopping mall, and it did not detonate...should she walk away? Eh, maybe not. But her intent here was not to hurt anybody. She is a human being who made a mistake while driving, and suffered consequences. If you want to start fining everybody who makes a mistake, then I don't know what to say. Except that it is dehumanizing.

mczerone
02-11-2014, 10:01 AM
I wasn't trying to draw an analogy with that scenario, I did that with my first post (negligent discharge). That scenario was to get people thinking about the extremes of "no victim, no crime."

In your analogy, the range is a private range ("we're losing money"). I would have to see the terms of use or contract to know if the lady in your example was liable for damages. I would be surprised if a range stated, "by the way, if you shoot through our backstop and damage anything, you're responsible." But if that's what the contract said, the lady would be liable as per the contract.

ETA: correction, I mentioned the negligent discharge analogy in my second post of this thread.


Comparing between a utopian society and reality? yes. Think of losing control of the car as a negligent discharge where no one gets hurt. Outside of the utopian world, reckless behavior will get you a ticket. I'm not saying it should be that way, but that's the way it's always been with driving. When weather conditions dictate, you need to drive at slower speeds to keep control of your vehicle.

Okay, so to rebut this post:

(1) "losing control of the car" does not imply negligence. More applicable to the facts here: having spun out does not imply negligence. Of course if you can prove negligence, then the driver would be liable for actual damages.

(2) What makes you think that negligence or recklessness wouldn't be actionable in a "utopian society"?

(3) "reckless behavior will get you a ticket" - This is demonstrably false. There are plenty of people who drive recklessly without getting cited. Some of them don't even have badges. There are also plenty of people who drive just fine but are cited anyway - either for violating arbitrary rules that don't align with safety or despite doing nothing wrong. In this case, not only was there no proof that her spinout was the result of excess speed, but also there was no proof that excess speed was reckless.

cjm
02-11-2014, 10:20 AM
(1) "losing control of the car" does not imply negligence.

I think we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on this point.

cjm
02-11-2014, 10:27 AM
If you want to start fining everybody who makes a mistake, then I don't know what to say. Except that it is dehumanizing.

But I didn't say that, did I? As I stated in the post that you quoted, I'd give a pass to the spin-out where no one was around. If you want to interpret that as wanting to fine everybody who makes a mistake, then I don't know what to say. Except that it misrepresents my stated position.

cjm
02-11-2014, 10:35 AM
I wouldn't consider that analogous to driving faster than some arbitrary speed on the road.

I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrary speed." It sounds like you are talking about the government posted maximum speed limit. I said nothing about that. Any mention to speed that I made has to do with the speeds at which one can safely operate his vehicle. That's going to be different for different drivers, vehicles, roads, and weather conditions. How to determine if they have exceeded their "personal" speed limit? If they lose control of their vehicles.

cjm
02-11-2014, 10:45 AM
I believe that they will lose if she fights this in court.

They might .... MIGHT..... be able to pull off a ticket for something like going too fast for conditions, but I'm pretty sure there was no flipping way she was going over 65 mph with the weather we've had here.

And the fact that she perhaps did not negotiate an entrance ramp correctly does not mean she was speeding.

I'm getting the impression that people are unaware that the posted speed limit does not always govern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Reasonable_speed


Reasonable speed

Drivers are required to drive at a safe speed for conditions. In the United States, this requirement is referred to as the basic rule,[14] but more generally in Britain and elsewhere in common law as the reasonable man requirement.[15] The German Highway Code (Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung) section on speed begins with a statement[16] which may be rendered in English:

Any person driving a vehicle may only drive so fast that the car is under control. Speeds must be adapted to the road, traffic, visibility and weather conditions as well as the personal skills and characteristics of the vehicle and load.

The US federal government has a similar law—49 CFR 392.14[17]—which applies in all states as permitted under by the commerce clause and due process clause.;[18] for example California Vehicle Code section 22350 which states that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable ... and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property".[19]

The basic speed law is almost always supplemented by specific maximum or minimum limits, but applies regardless. The reasonable speed may be different than the posted speed limit in conditions such as fog, heavy rain, ice, snow, gravel,[20] sharp corners, blinding glare,[21] darkness, crossing traffic,[22] or when there is an obstructed view of orthogonal traffic—such as by road curvature, parked cars, vegetation, or snow banks—thus limiting the Assured Clear Distance Ahead (ACDA).[23][24] Basic speed laws are statutized reinforcements of the centuries-old common law negligence doctrine as specifically applied to vehicular speed.[25]

In Virginia, she would get a reckless driving ticket instead of a speeding ticket.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-861


§ 46.2-861. Driving too fast for highway and traffic conditions.

A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who exceeds a reasonable speed under the circumstances and traffic conditions existing at the time, regardless of any posted speed limit.

jkr
02-11-2014, 10:49 AM
BULL$HIT
a gust of wind can trump existing friction conditions
you gonna blame her for that too?

talk about piling it on, DOESNT SHE HAVE ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH?
fuck her lets get sum monies from her ! we can get a trained dangerous animal to sick on 'em and A BEARCAT and shinny new cruisers that are FERRARI'S and...wow thats expensive BETTER MAKE UP MORE LAWS!!!

arent you supposed to have 2 OR MORE witnesses anyway?

nope, not to the physicist road warrior SUPER "SERVANT", he can SMELL speeding miles away

and in the past

http://www.dvdactive.com/images/news/screenshot/2010/9/timecopbd2d.jpg


maybe we SHOULD throw it in the woods...

Dr.3D
02-11-2014, 10:51 AM
This reminds me of an incident I saw a few years ago. A State Police car was just one car length behind another car and they were both traveling at round 35 miles per hour. The car in front of the cop car nosed into the snow piled on the side of the street, thus causing it to stop abruptly and the cop car ran into the back of it. I watched as the cop wrote the woman driving the car a ticket for I don't know what.

mczerone
02-11-2014, 10:53 AM
I think we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on this point.

It's different in Michigan than in Virginia.

Ice, potholes, other drivers, bad plowing, etc. can all make you lose control of your car, even at the most reasonable speeds and attention levels.

angelatc
02-11-2014, 10:53 AM
But I didn't say that, did I? As I stated in the post that you quoted, I'd give a pass to the spin-out where no one was around. If you want to interpret that as wanting to fine everybody who makes a mistake, then I don't know what to say. Except that it misrepresents my stated position.

Maybe I misunderstood your stated position. I thought that you wanted her ticketed because she was on the freeway, even though nobody got hurt.

If that is not the case, then I apologize. If not, then I disagree with your stated position. We all make mistakes, and fining people who make them is dehumanizing.

angelatc
02-11-2014, 10:57 AM
I'm getting the impression that people are unaware that the posted speed limit does not always govern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Reasonable_speed


Yes, and I'm also sure that you're aware the speeding is legally defined as posted as driving in excess of the posted speed limit, and that the courts have an established set of protocols that the state must adhere to in order to prove that. That's why when you challenge a speeding ticket, the cops who wrote it shows up as well as the guy who calibrated the machine.

Driving too fast for conditions is defined as driving too fast for conditions, not speeding.

cjm
02-11-2014, 11:07 AM
Yes, and I'm also sure that you're aware the speeding is legally defined as posted as driving in excess of the posted speed limit, and that the courts have an established set of protocols that the state must adhere to in order to prove that. That's why when you challenge a speeding ticket, the cops who wrote it shows up as well as the guy who calibrated the machine.

Driving too fast for conditions is defined as driving too fast for conditions, not speeding.

I have received a few tickets in the past that I have called "speeding" tickets. Technically, the citations have said "exceeding the posted speed limit," not "speeding." The lady may have received a ticket for "driving too fast for conditions" and is simply referring to that as "speeding." If she received a citation for "exceeding the posted speed limit," I'm with you. That's BS.

ETA: I re-read the OP. She was cited for driving too fast for the conditions (the basic speed law) not for exceeding the posted speed limit:


Lt. Shaw told The Detroit News, “We try to explain this to citizens all the time: If you’re driving down the freeway and you go through a certain spot just fine, but I wipe out and lose control, then I violated basic speed law.” The lieutenant added, “Probably 1,000 other cars were able to go onto that exit with no problem, but she wiped out, so she’s in violation. You can’t blame the snowbank.”

DamianTV
02-11-2014, 04:58 PM
Speeding, either by exceeding a posted speed limit, or driving too fast for conditions really isnt a Crime. There is no Victim. If their Speed caused Injury or Property Damage, then there is a Victim. It goes both ways however. Many dont want people to speed through their neighborhood due to the Risk even if there is no victim. Other side of the coin is it opens doors for people to be charged with other Victimless Crimes, such as either smoking a joint at home or not flossing.

I think the root of the problem here is that Fines are a source of Revenue, and the incentive to abusively fine people can only lead to abusive fines. I dont have a great solution for this that wont cause some conflicts because there are very irresponsible people in the world.

bunklocoempire
02-11-2014, 08:01 PM
“Probably 1,000 other cars were able to go onto that exit with no problem, but she wiped out, so she’s in violation. You can’t blame the snowbank.”


Yes you can -it just depends on who is doing the blaming:

"Snowbank to blame for crash" http://eedition.thepost.on.ca/doc/Hanover-Post/han_feb13/2014021101/5.html#4

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 08:09 PM
The idea behind that slogan was to keep the police department LOCAL. ie. NOT federal.

I understand your point but I still don't support ANY government police departments.

To clarify what I mean by 'reckless behavior' in this statement, I mean reckless behavior that has a reasonable probability of hurting someone else. If the lady spun out on a deserted country road, I would say no victim, no crime, no ticket.

But in this story she said she was driving on an interstate highway "with the flow of traffic" (other cars definitely there) when she lost control. She then reports, “I ended up sideways, and the way I was sitting, I was afraid I’d get hit by other cars, so I called 911 and told them I wasn’t hurt, but that my car was in a dangerous position.”

Yeah, I understand and respect your position here, but I don't agree. I'll state why in the below post.

I'm not a libertarian purist either, but I don't agree for penalizing people for things that did not hurt anybody.

If she had planted a bomb in a shopping mall, and it did not detonate...should she walk away? Eh, maybe not. But her intent here was not to hurt anybody. She is a human being who made a mistake while driving, and suffered consequences. If you want to start fining everybody who makes a mistake, then I don't know what to say. Except that it is dehumanizing.

Planting a bomb in a shopping mall is a violation of the NAP even if it does not detonate. I mean, unless the mall has a rule that says you can do that, but then, who would shop there? But otherwise, that seems pretty clearly a THREAT to harm, which is still an NAP violation according to most libertarian theorists, and also to me. If I threatened to kill your kids unless you did X, Y, and Z, you wouldn't be wrong to call the police* even if I didn't follow through.

I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrary speed." It sounds like you are talking about the government posted maximum speed limit. I said nothing about that. Any mention to speed that I made has to do with the speeds at which one can safely operate his vehicle. That's going to be different for different drivers, vehicles, roads, and weather conditions. How to determine if they have exceeded their "personal" speed limit? If they lose control of their vehicles.

OK, that's fair. But I don't agree with you here, and I think this is very different, in kind, not merely in degree, from putting on a blindfold and shooting at random. That case is very clearly a threat to harm others. Hitting a snow bank and spinning out, by contrast, is not a threat, its an accident. The scare and/or harm to the car is plenty there.

That she might have hurt somebody on a different day isn't really relevant. Bottom line is: she didn't, she made a mistake, she only hurt herself, it wasn't a deliberate threat to other cars (Like, say, swerving from lane to lane while driving 100 MPH in traffic could definitely be) so we should just move on.

satchelmcqueen
02-11-2014, 08:29 PM
the cop should have also shot her dog and then raped her. officer safety people......safety.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 10:05 PM
Since cjm repped me and mentioned this, I'll throw it out there.

I wouldn't necessarily call cjm's position "non-NAP." I don't think that cjm, and those who agree with him on this, are embracing aggression in the same way that someone who supports bans on prostitution or drugs is. I could be wrong, but I think we're starting with the same principle (That its illegitimate to initiate or threaten force) and deriving different conclusions from that philosophical basis, rather than starting from different principles. I'd like cjm or any others who take his position to clarify if I'm wrong about that.

I clarify this specifically because I stated in another thread that a prerequesite for being "for liberty" is accepting the NAP. I wanted to make clear that I'm not talking about people that interpret the NAP differently, only those who entirely reject it.