Didjja know...it is illegal to warm your car up before you get in it?

Yup. Same law in Rockford, IL just down the road from me. A running car encourages theft, making you a party to a crime.

 

A running car encourages theft, making you a party to a crime.

I like the part of the article suggesting that if you left a scissor laying on the front porch, somebody might steal them (it?) and run away, and you would be encouraging "running with scissors".

I have a couple of reference points in my own life. Once upon a time, a person went into a garage which was not his, opened the rear door of a Station Wagon type of car, lifted the floor cover, and took the spare tire. One person said it wasn't theft, it was temptation, and therefore the fault of the car owner. Does that theory apply in a retail store where thousands of stealable items are only as far away as the length of your arm?

Meanwhile, there is a police-cop show on TV called, "Bait Car". The police leave a car unattended, often with the keys on the roof of the car, in the ignition switch, and sometimes the car is running. When a person gets in the car and steals it, the police charge him/her with Grand Theft Auto but they don't charge themselves with creating the opportunity. You do exactly what the Police do, and you're the criminal??? (Or are the bait-car police criminals?)

My opinion is that taking what is not yours is theft. Blaming the victim doesn't cut it with me. Fining the non-victim of the not-stolen car (in the example of post #1480) is just revenue generation (extortion). What's next? Fining me for having flowers in my front garden because that encourages theft of flowers? Lawn furniture? A porch swing? The gate in my fence? A water spigot? An outdoor electric receptacle? Outdoor light bulbs? The sod your lawn is made of? What about car-jacking? Did the victim cause that by driving the car? Should the police write a ticket every time a car moves because that encourages hijacking? This line of thinking gets so ridiculous, so fast, that I am just not buying the premise that people who own stuff should be fined for having it where somebody can steal it.

And nsaspook lives in a Mayberry kind of town where he can wave at a cop and not expect to get pulled over.
I'm calling him lucky, or smart, to choose such a place!

 

So if you get shot with your own gun, will you be blamed for your own murder? You are the one who created the opportunity...

 

So if you get shot with your own gun, will you be blamed for your own murder? You are the one who created the opportunity...

Sure. There are several scenarios like that. If a child picks up your pistol and shoots you, it's your fault for leaving the pistol where a child could pick it up. If a police officer picks up your pistol and shoots you, it's your fault for making him "fear for his life" because he had your pistol and you didn't. If a police officer is trying to arrest you and shoots a random stranger with your gun (or his), it's your fault because you made him fire the pistol by looking like a criminal, even if you weren't involved in any crime. If you pick up your own gun and shoot yourself, it's your fault because suicide is illegal, therefore you used a gun in the commission of a crime.

There is only one scenario where it's not your fault: If an adult person who is not a LEO shoots you with your own pistol, and there are any number of ways you can still be at fault.

 

Officer-to-be posts his noble goals on Facebook.
No I.Q. problem here!

 

Wasting edible food when people are going hungry is not something I could do.

Regarding the beneficiaries: Was reasonable determination of 'edibility' (Spec: food safety) readily achievable, I'd tend to agree -- Unfortunately those lacking funds requisite of adequate nutrition might reasonably be expected to be without access to FSIS (or equivalent) lab facilities - and for the same reason...
Then too, I ask you to please consider that for every responsible donor there will be several, whom, although well-meaning, will nonetheless be negligent, lax or abjectly ignorant as regards safe handling technique...

How many people could one feed for free after paying for even a few regulations, requirements, certifications, insurance, etc. that a retail store pays?
Hint: The answer is zero.

IMO, you've identified an excellent argument for prohibition of 'lay grocers', etc... To wit: inability to afford compliance with safety regulations...

So, how much do you expect for free?

If reasonable safety (i.e. on a par with compliant distributors -- Which itself being a rather 'low bar') cannot be achieved - Then I should expect insist upon absolutely nothing! -- IMO The 'under privileged' should not be put in the position of playing 'Russian roulette' with their lives (to a greater extent than the balance of the population)... Call me idealistic if you must - howbeit I yet regard the US as a civilized society - even in these times...

There is no practical way to do what you expect. The alternative is to do nothing. That isn't going to help anybody.

And I would say that we (as a society) can readily afford provision of our under-privileged with safe nutrition -- Seriously! Limitation of options to one of malnutrition -or- enhanced liability to poisoning is hardly consistent with our proclaimed cultural mores - nor, for that matter, basal decency...

Gentlemen! -- Please understand - Your benevolent intent does not escape me! -- As I see it, your principle concern is that insistence upon commercial food quality standards runs the risk of regulating private nutrition assistance efforts out of existence? -- Whereas it is my stance that 'taking care of our own' -at so basal a level- constitutes a public obligation which being publicly fundable (if need be) -- Then too, as a purely practical matter, in consideration of the (readily anticipatable) savings in medical assistance and unemployment claims secondary to high-quality nutrition assistance programs - I feel such would more than pay for themselves in short order! (NPI) -- In the meantime, restriction of distribution to industrially packaged ,'shelf-stable' foods within their expiry dates would seem painless enough?

With utmost respect and very best regards
HP

 

Didjja know...it is illegal to warm your car up before you get in it?

FWIW - 'round here the 'anti-idling' regulations are (ostensibly) down to noise reduction... (yea right!)

Yup. Same law in Rockford, IL just down the road from me. A running car encourages theft, making you a party to a crime.

Oh my! So the vile law abiding citizens strike again! This time via enticement of the hapless, disenfranchised and in every way victimized legions of rouges to criminality via our egocentric, insensitive and just wrong-minded demand for comfortable use of our own possessions -- My guilt is fairly smothering me! -- Heil the Nanny State! Where the lower you sink - the higher you rise!

Best regards
HP

 

If reasonable safety (i.e. on a par with compliant distributors -- Which itself being a rather 'low bar') cannot be achieved - Then I should expect insist upon absolutely nothing!

Nobody got arrested for supplying sub-standard food. Nobody even suggested sub-standard food, let alone lethal risks. The helpful people in Tampa were arrested in order to make them invisible to tourists at a sporting event.

restriction of distribution to industrially packaged ,'shelf-stable' foods within their expiry dates would seem painless enough?

Did you get the idea that this isn't exactly what, "food banks" are doing?
I can't quite imagine how one would find dozens of expired canned goods per day in order to offer them to the poor.

The idea that some people provide fresh food and hot meals to the homeless is a different matter. Do you think people are buying Kentucky Fried Chicken and holding it for a few days before presenting it in public? Point is, I am lost as to where this life-threatening hazard originates.

consider that for every responsible donor there will be several, whom, although well-meaning, will nonetheless be negligent, lax or abjectly ignorant as regards safe handling technique...

Oh. There it is.
I have searched and searched for "homeless poisoned" and I can not find any intentional poisoning events.

One fatal error happened at a homeless shelter in Salt Lake City: "The dining hall has passed several surprise biannual inspections, health department officials said."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...y-cause-of-shelter-food-poisoning.html?pg=all

Another at a Church dinner in San Francisco: "Even after more testing, it isn’t “100 percent sure” the exact cause will be determined, she said."
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/28/one-confirmed-dead-after-thanksgiving-dinner-on-friday/

One in a Denver homeless shelter: "Although the decades-old shelter serves 600,000 meals a year, Gagner said it has never had a food poisoning outbreak before. The shelter's kitchens are held to the same standards as restaurant kitchens."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/...ontaminated-food-sends-60-people-to-hospital/

Still zero results for any illness from small, local giveaways.
64 million families served per year and I can find (3) THREE toxic events, all of which were at large, continuously run kitchens.
I like those odds. They are much better than the odds of getting ill in a "properly" licensed and inspected restaurant.

 

Related to an earlier post (1319) about catch-and-release, @wayneh :
A Supreme Court Ruling says defendants get their money back if not convicted, but only for, "court costs" and only in Colorado.
I wonder if that will apply to "booking" fees already mentioned in this Thread?
Prisoner clothing fees? Even less likely.
I can almost guarantee it won't apply to Civil Asset Forfeiture, but it should.
That Federal level Unconstitutional taking without due process is just too lucrative to die without a specific and separate Supreme Court ruling.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n-acquittal-court-costs-restitution/96345736/

And a tag-along while I'm posting...
Federal "Real ID" scam causes black market in Fake ID.
Things that make you go Hmmm...
Prohibition? Bootleg booze.
War on Drugs? Synthetic pot substitutes and designer drugs.
Real ID? Fake identities.
I think I see a pattern.
https://reason.com/archives/2017/01/10/now-more-than-ever-we-need-fake-id

 

The helpful people in Tampa were arrested in order to make them invisible to tourists at a sporting event.

Aye! -- That the 'hearts' of public servants (or, rather, the legislators to whose tune they 'dance') are in the 'wrong place' is hardly surprising - still, some (collateral) good occasionally attends their chicanery...

restriction of distribution to industrially packaged ,'shelf-stable' foods within their expiry dates would seem painless enough?

Did you get the idea that this isn't exactly what, "food banks" are doing?

I can only speak for my 'environs' (i.e. Mn, N. Ont and Wi) in which case the answer is a resounding no! Past date food is the norm - worse yet, 'wildlife products', home canned and foods of otherwise highly dubious safety are commonly accepted and distributed!

FWIW - I have no problem whatever with 'current', unopened dry and canned goods! -- FWIW I feel the best collection technique is a scheme whereby supermarkets provide a 'donation bin' for deposit of freshly purchased 'non-perishable' goods - a trend that seems to be 'catching on' - I can but hope such becomes the standard method of donation

I can not find any intentional poisoning events.

Indeed! - I too strongly doubt criminal intent (in this context) is common -- that said, ignorance is rampant - and, given a chance, (at least) as lethal as 'malice aforethought'!

Still zero results for any illness from small, local giveaways.

Again, I can't speak for the 'vagaries' of search algorithms -- I can merely assert that my observations (in a professional capacity), over some considerable time, run counter to said search results...

On the 'sunny side' it seems the situation is, indeed, improving! -- We can but hope for the best!

Very best regards
HP

 

I can only speak for my 'environs' (i.e. Mn, N. Ont and Wi) in which case the answer is a resounding no! Past date food is the norm - worse yet, 'wildlife products', home canned and foods of otherwise highly dubious safety are commonly accepted and distributed!

That certainly explains our differences on the subject!

 

running car encourages theft, making you a party to a crime.

Such laws are idiotic. If you followed it, you would have to argue that it is unlawful to be lawful - your following the law makes an easy target for the criminals.

It seems to me that we live in a society where everyone is protected other tthan thee law abiding citizens.

 

I can almost guarantee it won't apply to Civil Asset Forfeiture, but it should.
That Federal level Unconstitutional taking without due process is just too lucrative to die without a specific and separate Supreme Court ruling.

Gota pay for the GOP tax cuts somehow.

 

That's as may be (IOW I'll take your word for it) -- All the same - I maintain my stance that where foodstuffs are concerned - if it's (for whatever reason) deemed unacceptable for retail sale - it should not be offered for human consumption...

Just how long do you think things(canned goods) sit in a warehouse before being sent to a store? Why do you think stores have such good sales in late summer on canned vegetables, when harvest season starts? I can tell you don't do your own shopping or cooking.

Again, I'll take your word for it IMNSHO There is absolutely no rationale for holding nutrition assistance programs to anything less than supermarket quality standards! -- I'd like to think 'USA' yet stands for something beyond mere designation of a region of N. America! - If/when we (as a nation) find it acceptable to 'slop' our unfortunates with rubbish (à la livestock) then that day is truly long past

Do you pay attention on Federal or state votes on welfare for low or no income people? It's consistently the GOP that is totally against any further help but for reducing the help we give now. And at the same time are for welfare for big agriculture. This is the one reason for me I can no longer vote(in most cases) Repub. This attitude they've gone to of,"I've got mine and you should have got yours", no matter what the others circumstances in life. There are more things in the lives of people than just boiling it down to, "you're just a loser and don't/never wanted to work and just want a handout."

Not to insult you or start a war, but from the way you talk (not the words you use), are you sure your first name isn't Marie? You come across as saying, "let them eat cake".

 

You come across as saying, "let them eat cake".

I regret that I have to agree on this point.
I have elaborated in post #1497

 

I guess we're getting off off-topic, but this discussion reminds me of this silliness:

"We're protecting you from eating GM foods by starving you to death. You're welcome."

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/27/europe-starving-africa-blocking-gmos/
http://www.economist.com/node/1337197

 

As I see it, your principle concern is that insistence upon commercial food quality standards runs the risk of regulating private nutrition assistance efforts out of existence?

No. My primary concern is that charity food providers already have a better health record than, "compliant distributors" and you want them to lower their standards to be "on Par" with compliant distributors or quit entirely.

If reasonable safety (i.e. on a par with compliant distributors -- Which itself being a rather 'low bar') cannot be achieved - Then I should expect insist upon absolutely nothing!

That sounds worse than, "Let them eat cake." It sounds like, "Let them starve." or,
"Anybody that doesn't live down to government standards should provide absolutely nothing!"

I worked in this county for 40 years, lacking 16 of the 17 licenses required by law. I never had a complaint filed against me in 40 years because I refuse to live down to government standards. Even when I did a legal job and passed inspection, I would wait until the inspector left and add extra performance and safety equipment to bring the job up to my standards. That has a lot to do with why I'm not comfortably wealthy, but I demonstrated that I was, and am, willing to pay that price for the integrity associated with my name.

 

I worked in this county for 40 years, lacking 16 of the 17 licenses required by law. I never had a complaint filed against me in 40 years because I refuse to live down to government standards. Even when I did a legal job and passed inspection, I would wait until the inspector left and add extra performance and safety equipment to bring the job up to my standards.

That highlights one unintended consequence of having the government set minimum standards for ... anything. That ends up becoming the maximum standard. Nobody bothers to exceed the minimum requirements.

 

Here's one I never heard of before.

Texas sheriff’s deputy arrested. Video on police computer showing him screwing the pooch. Literally.

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...x-video-with-small-dog-and-sharing-it-online/

 

Here's one I never heard of before.

Wow. That takes a special kind of stupid. Doing it, stupid. Filming it, stupid. Posting it, are you kidding me?