Being Unreasonable
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
But has anyone follwed up on the condition of the woman?
She's had insult added to her injuries, and yet you're all focussing on the antics of the three men around her!
I hope she's recovering well and getting the support she needs.
To misquote Walter Sobchak: "The woman is not the issue here Dude!" Given that she managed to drive to her grandmothers house, summon the constabulary and argue with the tow truck driver, I'm inferring that she wasn't too seriously injured. That is beside the point however, what we are discussing here is not domestic violence, but what constitutes a reasonable response to unreasonable behavior. The boyfriend's actions are covered under the law, what the truck driver did is technically legal but morally reprehensible, and to me is the stickier issue as to how it is handled.
Actually the problem is neither the woman nor the tow truck driver. It's the law that permits the tow truck driver to misbehave.
Hence why the supply of a**holes in the Seattle region has not seen a precipitous dip lately... Again though, you're focusing on the unimportant part of my post instead of the meat of my argument, that unreasonableness should be replied to in turn. I've never had a problem with refraining from damaging the people that annoy me, because I'm at heart a reasonable guy. What bothers me is that my reasonableness puts me at a disadvantage in certain situations because there is a point of decency that I will not cross simply to get my way, when other people just charge on past due to the lack of consequences. When there is no disincentive to behave badly, why should we expect people to do anything but?
An interesting question to me would be to work out the economics of shooting a**holes as a net effect on society, like would the pain and suffering inflicted on the a**holes and their people counter-balance their negative impact on everyone around them? Plus of course the effect of the preventative action of making the occasional example would have to be calculated, how many would-be a**holes would choose a different way when that path might lead to a bullet in the ass... I never said you'd have to kill them, I think having to stand up for a month would have the desired effect in this case. Of course, I'm not seriously advocating this as a social policy, but a guy can dream, right?
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Unfortunately, there is no law against being a jerk, and I can't think of any way of implementing one that wouldn't verge on the totalitarian. I think that discouraging this type of behavior needs to fall on society, hence my desire to see an occasional extreme example made.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Unfortunately, there is no law against being a jerk, and I can't think of any way of implementing one that wouldn't verge on the totalitarian. I think that discouraging this type of behavior needs to fall on society, hence my desire to see an occasional extreme example made.
In this case extenuating circumstances could be legally posited in the behavior of the tow truck operator. Shooting him is violent assault and the decision of who to punish and what circumstances require extreme punishment should not be in the hands of the individual. That way leads to uncontrollable violence and social chaos.
In this case extenuating circumstances could be legally posited in the behavior of the tow truck operator. Shooting him is violent assault and the decision of who to punish and what circumstances require extreme punishment should not be in the hands of the individual. That way leads to uncontrollable violence and social chaos.
In my quote above, where did I say that the tow truck driver should be shot? I said that society should discourage that sort of behavior, in my previous posts in the thread I said that I would like to shoot people like that, but I've tried to stress that I'm not being completely serious. I'm using shooting as an example of an extreme response because I'm familiar with it, I'm not seriously advocating shooting people who misbehave. I know the distinction is confusing.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Letting my retail background show a bit more, I think one thing that has exacerbated the problem is the way that customer service is handled. People learned that businesses would bend over backwards for them if they threatened to take their money elsewhere, and took advantage. Over time, as businesses wised up, customers have learned that they have to go further and further off the deep end to get something for free, or a discount, or their money back on an obviously used product, etc. I think this "squeaky wheel" mentality has infected society, and now people feel entitled to getting their way by throwing public temper tantrums. Call it "Nordstrom Syndrome", there is currently no downside, the worst that can happen is the would-be victim of this behavior says no to whatever is being demanded. It also seems to be sort of a dominance thing, if the tantrum is refused the person throwing it seems to view this as some sort of challenge and escalates, like street kids killing each other over minor disrespect. Again, this throws things all out of whack in that the "decent" people, who are unwilling to lower themselves through this sort of bad behavior, are being punished at the expense of those who are.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
What you are describing is a kind of Gresham's Law of behavior which is a deep cultural problem. Those who find ways to evade and distort civil behavior force others to behave the same way and gradually destroy society. Society can, through childhood indoctrination, create a social ambiance where civil behavior is encouraged but this is a two edged sword. Much innovative and usefully creative behavior can come from people who see the faults in too much social control and violate it. This usually gives them a tough life but frequently, when the unsocial behavior is not outright violence and criminal, society is modified and benefits.
Its still interfering in a criminal investigation, and the cop should have claimed he had to impound the car as evidence. Bit of initiative never hurts. It can even save lives. There is something odd about American police.. they can and will tazer you into the floor for arguing with them, but will allow someone to be utterly obtuse with them and do nothing about it.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
Police officers do not have a general right to confiscate and dispose of property, so I do not see how the officer could legally take the car as evidence then hand it back to the woman. I think the woman probably preferred to pay up to one hundred and sixty dollars rather than wait until the case against her assailant had progressed through the justice system (the soonest she could have gotten the car back if it were taken into police custody as evidence in the case against the assailant).
As for the towie, what business of his is it why the car was parked where it was? If the community believes one should not have their car towed while either escaping from a violent assailant, or trying to contact law enforcement agencies to come to their assistant in the event of being assaulted, then the community can enact this standard into law. Is the towie supposed to fob off his landlord, pay his kids' school fees or get groceries with some sorry-arsed story about a woman parking her car in the wrong place while trying to escape an assailant? Would anyone in this thread employed in retail accept this story in lieu of legal tender for the exchange of goods? I doubt it.
This happened in a capitalist society, during tough economic times. I strongly suspect that the towie's actions, as 'not nice' as they might be, constitute a response of the kind we can expect more of until the economy improves. For we all we know this guy was one tow away from having to burn his house down to rid himself of the mortgage. In an economy premised on capitalist/market mentality, where there are few supports for those who fall on hard-times, when times get hard, so do people. Maybe this bloke is an all-time jerk, or maybe he has hungry kids depending on him and no certainty that he can adequately feed them this week - I suspect in tough economic times, people are more cautious about where they park, and if no one is prepared to park illegally, how is a towie to earn a crust?
As for the towie, what business of his is it why the car was parked where it was? If the community believes one should not have their car towed while either escaping from a violent assailant, or trying to contact law enforcement agencies to come to their assistant in the event of being assaulted, then the community can enact this standard into law. Is the towie supposed to fob off his landlord, pay his kids' school fees or get groceries with some sorry-arsed story about a woman parking her car in the wrong place while trying to escape an assailant? Would anyone in this thread employed in retail accept this story in lieu of legal tender for the exchange of goods? I doubt it.
This happened in a capitalist society, during tough economic times. I strongly suspect that the towie's actions, as 'not nice' as they might be, constitute a response of the kind we can expect more of until the economy improves. For we all we know this guy was one tow away from having to burn his house down to rid himself of the mortgage. In an economy premised on capitalist/market mentality, where there are few supports for those who fall on hard-times, when times get hard, so do people. Maybe this bloke is an all-time jerk, or maybe he has hungry kids depending on him and no certainty that he can adequately feed them this week - I suspect in tough economic times, people are more cautious about where they park, and if no one is prepared to park illegally, how is a towie to earn a crust?
I wasnt saying the cop should ACTUALLY impound the car. I'm talking about him lying in the immediate term. Using his initiative. Make something up. I dunno. Something akin to that.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
I had considered the possibility, but had chosen against assuming that you were suggesting it would be desirable for the (or any) police officer to corruptly abuse their position of authority to illegally obtain possession of property.