This woman does not deserve kids.

[WylieKy]

At least she was breastfeeding, which is one of the most positive things a mother can do for her child. 

I think this is at most a lapse in judgement and the OP statment of "This woman does not deserve kids." is clearly a kneejerk overreaction similar to "This has to stop!!!!!!!!!!!"  This should be at most a seatbelt violation (which I also think is intrusive.)  Worst case scenario this is natural selection at work.  I strongly recommend you all rent the movie Idiocracy if you don't know what I am talking about... 

FYI, one of my best female friends in highschool was the daughter of the county sheriff.  He told her and her brothers in no uncertain terms that if he ever caught them in a seat belt he would use his belt on them. 

[LONGTOM]

Sorry shootall:
This time it was my misunderstanding then.
Thank you.

You are correct about local ordenaces and city laws.

The problem is they try to over ride State law which is open carry .
In a vehicle I beleave the state says no loaded long gun but you can have a loaded handgun as long as it is in plain view.

I do agree that the last thing we need or want is more laws or government intrusion into our lives.
I was brought up to beleave that you never put a childs life in danger no matter what, and I feel she was doing just that.
As for her safty, that is her business and it really doesn't matter to me.
It is her decision.
The young child/baby does not or cant make that choice.

I too beleave in breastfeeding a child.
It is the most natural thing a mother can do and promotes a bond that no one can ever break.

Heck I am 51 and still like to be suckled to a breast!

I too hate seatbelts and had I been wearing one the night manys years ago as a older teen when I blew out a left front tire going into a right hand turn.
The car went across the road, hit the bank, went up the bank and rolled three times landing on the top.
If I hadn't thought about grabbing hold of the underside of the seat to help keep me as flat as possible I am sure I would not be here today.
Not much left of the car.
Oh BTW, I did get a wreckless driving ticket even though I was well under the speed limit, 40 in a 55.
The state cop said that if I didn't contest it that he would ask the judge to drop the charge, which he did.
Back then it was not a law to have to wear a seatbelt.

Va law does state that a child must be straped in a car seat or booster seat in the rear seat of a car under a certain age and height/weight.

I guess we have pretty well beat this thread up.

I just felt she was wrong.

I hope no hard feelings guys as there really isn't any on this end.


LONGTOM

[alpha wolf]

Here is the main point DRIVING IS A PRIVILAGE NOT A RIGHT there fore the laws are justified and if you can not obey them then do not drive.  It was not fair to the child to be put it that situation.  In a vehicle you have no reasonable right to privacy because every one can see inside your vehicle.  The car seat laws are in place to protect kids from stupid parents.   

[Matt]

Here we go again... I really wish some of you would do just a little research... you may find things are not what you have been lead to believe.

3 FACTS TO CONSIDER:

WHAT IS A MOTOR VEHICLE?
The term “motor vehicle” means: every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purpose on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. U.S. Code Title 18 Section 31 Paragraph 6.
 
WHAT DOES “USED FORCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES” MEAN?
The term “Used for commercial purposes” means: “the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. U.S. Code Title 18 Section 31 Paragraph 10.
 
TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE YOUR AUTOMOBILE  ON THE HIGHWAYS IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
”The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Thompson v. Smith


So stick that in your pipe and smoke it... dont believe me do the research for yourself...

Matt

[45-70.gov]

the child restraint laws are passed by  those  elected by the majority
the roads are  owned by us  and  we must use the as directed  by law

but is child endangerment extreem or should  it go with if any speeding ticket

i am not  going to debate  the law  change  it  if you don't like  it


but  what  jumps out at  me  and  no one  mentioned
this person  was charged  based on  some one elses  reporting
it  was not witnessed  by  law enforcement
she cannot be convicted with out  that witnesses testimony
can  this witness  be charged   if  she  is not convicted

one  of 3 out comes  will  come to be

a menace to children gets  away with  it  if the witness  fails to show
she  is  actually a threat to children  and  is convicted
an  innocent person   is falsly  accused

[DalesCarpentry]

the child restraint laws are passed by  those  elected by the majority
the roads are  owned by us  and  we must use the as directed  by law

but is child endangerment extreem or should  it go with if any speeding ticket

i am not  going to debate  the law  change  it  if you don't like  it


but  what  jumps out at  me  and  no one  mentioned
this person  was charged  based on  some one elses  reporting
it  was not witnessed  by  law enforcement
she cannot be convicted with out  that witnesses testimony
can  this witness  be charged   if  she  is not convicted

one  of 3 out comes  will  come to be

a menace to children gets  away with  it  if the witness  fails to show
she  is  actually a threat to children  and  is convicted
an  innocent person   is falsly  accused

She admitted to the police. She confessed. If she had not and denied it she would have never been charged. Dale

[45-70.gov]

do  not talk  to police
that try to engage  you in confersation

rule #1

see  youtube      how to talk to police


did he read her   her rights

where  is that  atllaw  guy??

[LONGTOM]

I don't think the OP said she was arrested, just charged and issued a ticket and a summons.
If she was not arrested he did not have to read her her rights other than what rights she has as it pretains to the ticket.

If I am wrong please correct.


LONGTOM

[gypsyman]

Longtom, sorry about the misunderstanding on my part. And Shootall, I agree, warning good, snitch bad.
I didn't see it, but I was at a gun show in Columbus that weekend, and my mother-in-law seen the news report on this incident.Kettering is a subarb of Dayton, about 60 miles west of Col. She said the woman was openly defiant about this ticket, couldn't see what see had done wrong, and said she would do it again. If correct, and the police actually didn't see the violation, I don't think they had the right to write a ticket. Verbal warning only. My hope is, that the father of the kids, if she knows who he is, had a sit down with her, and explained the facts of life. If my wife would have done something stupid like this, I'm sure she would have needed a hearing aid by now. gypsyman

[alpha wolf]

Matt driving is a privilage that is why you are issued a licesnce to drive and have the rules to follow.  If you can not follow the rules the privilage is removed and you can not drive.  Lawyers argue that crap all the time and lose so get over it.

[Don Smith]

The root problem is that we are no longer under Constitutional Law but rather Contract Law.  Under Constitutional Law there can be no crime unless there is a victim.  If you were charged of a crime you had the right to confront and examine the victim.  But under Contract Law it is no longer required to have a victim to bring a charge against someone. The courts have adopted the position that the state can be the victim.  That is why there can be laws passed like the seat belt law, etc.

Contact law has also allowed the states to use implied consent to arrest someone operating a vehicle if they are found to do something they do not like,  This would include speeding tickets, parking tickets and a whold olt of other things were there is no victim,  You have agreed to being procruted by the signature on your drivers licence, and regirstration.

Contact Law also allows the IRS to operate, as well as the DMV, Child Protection, Animal Control and a host of other agencys making our life harder

Conract law was brought to us during theperiod of the bankers holiday in which the United States declared bankrupsy (sp?) to the Federal Reserve banks.  The President and Congress passed a law making all people and assets the property of the Federal Reserve Banks.   

While I might be off a bit with some points the most is correct as I understand it.  And the beat goes on...worse erery day.  Right after that they made a point to try to pretend the constitution was being followed.  Now they do not even try to pretend to follow it.   Commets welcome  Don

[45-70.gov]

I don't think the OP said she was arrested, just charged and issued a ticket and a summons.
If she was not arrested he did not have to read her her rights other than what rights she has as it pretains to the ticket.

If I am wrong please correct.


LONGTOM

i  meant  can  what she  said be used  against  her  if not read rights

it  all sounds like a wast  of  the tax payers  money

[alpha wolf]

I don't think the OP said she was arrested, just charged and issued a ticket and a summons.
If she was not arrested he did not have to read her her rights other than what rights she has as it pretains to the ticket.

If I am wrong please correct.


LONGTOM

i  meant  can  what she  said be used  against  her  if not read rights

it  all sounds like a wast  of  the tax payers  money

Yes it can because she was not under arrest at that time so they did not have to read her her rights.  But I do not think she should have been summonds with out the officer seeing it himself.  If she contest it and the eyewitness does not show up to court it should be thrown out.

[45-70.gov]

so  it will  waste tax payers  money

maybe just the trip to court to be vindicated  will  be  'punishment enough''

if you thought  that  is justice....then  you  agree punishment  with out due process  is  OK

i  was  once falsly arrested as were  my kids based on a  private citizens  complaint
i  posted  bail  and  highered a lawer......money  i lost basicaly  i was  fined with out due prosess

i  had  no  recouse  against the government
but  sued  the  witness  in civil court  and  got some  money   $5k

but  was  un  able  to sue  the other witness  due to extenuating circomstances
this  same  person  reported  i intentionally caused  a wreck  they witnessed  years  later
but  his  opinion  was  dismissed  when  i pointed out the history  with this neighbor