4 ms·

We do it all the time. You are mandated to get a license to drive a car so that you don't have a higher chance of killing people.

by e40 5y ago

notch656a 5y ago
Not on private property you don't need a license. Similarly, a business on private property should be able to dictate a mask or vaccination isn't required. You shouldn't have a right to dictate what kind of consensual conduct happens on private property. In Texas, I can get hammered, drive a car drunk without a license behind a fence 10 feet next to the highway (property-side). And there's not a damn thing you can legally do about it, despite any fears I may plow through that fence. The suggested (stricken) OSHA mandates were basically forcing non-consensual penetration, or lose your job. --------- >That's not totally true. This Texas-based DWI defense attorney says: You conveniently skipped the top of the page where it explicitly says DWI in Texas must occur in public (a fenced in private property is almost never considered public). Sure a cop can probably find a reason to arrest you no matter what you're doing, if they want to. >Obviously you should be able to be unvaccinated only on private property then... Most businesses are on private property. Given that the fourth amendment protects us from handing over documents except on subpeona/court order or probable cause of crime (a few states do compel revealing your identity, although you don't have to reveal your age if the crime is age-related such as alcohol violation), and you can't tell by looking at someone if they're vaccinated, it would essentially be meaningless to make it a crime to be unvaccinated while walking to work for instance. Controlling vaccination is far easier on private property, where you have no freedom to travel and can thus be stopped and checked before entering.
- Domenic_S 5y ago
  That's not totally true. This Texas-based DWI defense attorney says: > The police can arrest you if they have probable cause to do so for driving under the influence. Even if you are operating your motor vehicle on what you believe is your own property, the police still may have probable cause to believe your conduct is a threat to yourself or others. Therefore, you should not assume that you are completely safe from arrest or conviction if you are driving drunk on your own property. - http://jackpettit.com/blog/dwis-and-drunk-driving-on-private-property-in-texas/ http://jackpettit.com/blog/dwis-and-drunk-driving-on-private...
- greysphere 5y ago
  Obviously you should be able to be unvaccinated only on private property then...
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > The suggested (stricken) OSHA mandates were basically forcing non-consensual penetration, or lose your job. Is that really so different? If you need to drive for your job and try to do so without a licence you'll lose your job too. Conversely, if you're in your own home then nobody is going to make you wear a mask (well certainly not the government anyway).
- kube-system 5y ago
  Driving is a bad example. Almost any other public safety regulation is a better example; most of them apply to private property. Almost never do private companies get to "choose" to follow safety regulations. McDonalds must follow food safety regulations, construction companies must follow building codes, industrial companies must follow occupational health and safety standards, aircraft operators must follow FAA regulations, etc.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Being forced to wear a mask or vaccinate could be a public health risk: - Infants/Toddlers (mask): linguistic development health risk - Adults (vaccine): risk of anaphylaxis, TTS, GBS, Myocarditis, Pericarditis Individuals should weigh these risks and determine whether it makes sense in their particular scenario. None of McDonalds food safety regulations I'm aware of involve penetrating a human with a needle. Also the driving thing was somebody else, I just responded to it. If you didn't like it, it would have made more sense to have told them it was a bad example instead of me. It wasn't my example.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Hahaha, in a worldview that has little much more to aspire to than the acquisition of wealth and material things, I guess it's not a shock that people start looking at each other in a legalistic mentality as small, poor, not so well protected corporate entities such that we are fashioned in the image of a company. All of the microbes that live in our guts are our employees, our mind is the CEO sitting in the brain as its office, the other organs hosting other managers.
- smileysteve 5y ago
  You give Texas as an example; but important for your example, its government disincentivized and removed the rights from companies, private property, and small local governments to require masks, vaccines, or reduction in capacities.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Can you point to me where it was made illegal to require a mask on private property in Texas (other than perhaps for certain disabled persons per ADA)? My understanding is masks mandates were only banned in places like public schools, where the owner is the public thus the individual public student has the decision to wear a mask or not. I would certainly disagree with this sort of control on private school, although I might add it could be a public health risk to mandate masks in school as it could harm the linguistic health of some young children developing language skills.
    - smileysteve 5y ago
      I believe you're correct on masks, only applying to smaller local government and not private property. Employers were banned from vaccine mandates (even on their private property). Court rulings were that these were abuse of the state government on smaller local governments and private entities.
- otterley 5y ago
  There's often more than one statute that prohibits a certain proscribed activity. You might not be liable under the Texas Vehicle Code for DWI for drinking and driving on a non-public highway; but depending on the circumstances, you could be liable for under the Penal Code for reckless endangerment (section 22.05(a)).
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Can you cite a case where someone has been convicted under 22.05(a) for driving drunk on private property without actually having hit anyone? You can charge whatever you like, a prosecutor/grand jury can "indict a ham sandwich." Texas still has a sodomy law on the books too (although enforcing it has been stricken by supreme court).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 5y ago
      Reckless endangerment does not require you actually hit anyone. Where did you get that from? Texas Penal Code 6.03(c): "A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint." And what does the now-void sodomy law have to do with anything? You're also mixing up indictment with conviction. At any rate, you don't have to have a fact pattern that precisely matches a previously-recorded case to think "gee, maybe this is a bad idea and puts me at risk of violating some law." Most cases involve fact patterns that are at least somewhat different from previous case law. A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases.
      - notch656a 5y ago

We do it all the time. You are mandated to get a license to drive a car so that you don't have a higher chance of killing people.

by e40 5y ago

We do it all the time. You are mandated to get a license to drive a car so that you don't have a higher chance of killing people.

notch656a 5y ago

Not on private property you don't need a license. Similarly, a business on private property should be able to dictate a mask or vaccination isn't required. You shouldn't have a right to dictate what kind of consensual conduct happens on private property. In Texas, I can get hammered, drive a car drunk without a license behind a fence 10 feet next to the highway (property-side). And there's not a damn thing you can legally do about it, despite any fears I may plow through that fence. The suggested (stricken) OSHA mandates were basically forcing non-consensual penetration, or lose your job. --------- >That's not totally true. This Texas-based DWI defense attorney says: You conveniently skipped the top of the page where it explicitly says DWI in Texas must occur in public (a fenced in private property is almost never considered public). Sure a cop can probably find a reason to arrest you no matter what you're doing, if they want to. >Obviously you should be able to be unvaccinated only on private property then... Most businesses are on private property. Given that the fourth amendment protects us from handing over documents except on subpeona/court order or probable cause of crime (a few states do compel revealing your identity, although you don't have to reveal your age if the crime is age-related such as alcohol violation), and you can't tell by looking at someone if they're vaccinated, it would essentially be meaningless to make it a crime to be unvaccinated while walking to work for instance. Controlling vaccination is far easier on private property, where you have no freedom to travel and can thus be stopped and checked before entering.

Domenic_S 5y ago
That's not totally true. This Texas-based DWI defense attorney says: > The police can arrest you if they have probable cause to do so for driving under the influence. Even if you are operating your motor vehicle on what you believe is your own property, the police still may have probable cause to believe your conduct is a threat to yourself or others. Therefore, you should not assume that you are completely safe from arrest or conviction if you are driving drunk on your own property. - http://jackpettit.com/blog/dwis-and-drunk-driving-on-private-property-in-texas/ http://jackpettit.com/blog/dwis-and-drunk-driving-on-private...
greysphere 5y ago
Obviously you should be able to be unvaccinated only on private property then...
nicoburns 5y ago
> The suggested (stricken) OSHA mandates were basically forcing non-consensual penetration, or lose your job. Is that really so different? If you need to drive for your job and try to do so without a licence you'll lose your job too. Conversely, if you're in your own home then nobody is going to make you wear a mask (well certainly not the government anyway).
kube-system 5y ago
Driving is a bad example. Almost any other public safety regulation is a better example; most of them apply to private property. Almost never do private companies get to "choose" to follow safety regulations. McDonalds must follow food safety regulations, construction companies must follow building codes, industrial companies must follow occupational health and safety standards, aircraft operators must follow FAA regulations, etc.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Being forced to wear a mask or vaccinate could be a public health risk: - Infants/Toddlers (mask): linguistic development health risk - Adults (vaccine): risk of anaphylaxis, TTS, GBS, Myocarditis, Pericarditis Individuals should weigh these risks and determine whether it makes sense in their particular scenario. None of McDonalds food safety regulations I'm aware of involve penetrating a human with a needle. Also the driving thing was somebody else, I just responded to it. If you didn't like it, it would have made more sense to have told them it was a bad example instead of me. It wasn't my example.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Hahaha, in a worldview that has little much more to aspire to than the acquisition of wealth and material things, I guess it's not a shock that people start looking at each other in a legalistic mentality as small, poor, not so well protected corporate entities such that we are fashioned in the image of a company. All of the microbes that live in our guts are our employees, our mind is the CEO sitting in the brain as its office, the other organs hosting other managers.
smileysteve 5y ago
You give Texas as an example; but important for your example, its government disincentivized and removed the rights from companies, private property, and small local governments to require masks, vaccines, or reduction in capacities.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Can you point to me where it was made illegal to require a mask on private property in Texas (other than perhaps for certain disabled persons per ADA)? My understanding is masks mandates were only banned in places like public schools, where the owner is the public thus the individual public student has the decision to wear a mask or not. I would certainly disagree with this sort of control on private school, although I might add it could be a public health risk to mandate masks in school as it could harm the linguistic health of some young children developing language skills.
  - smileysteve 5y ago
    I believe you're correct on masks, only applying to smaller local government and not private property. Employers were banned from vaccine mandates (even on their private property). Court rulings were that these were abuse of the state government on smaller local governments and private entities.
otterley 5y ago
There's often more than one statute that prohibits a certain proscribed activity. You might not be liable under the Texas Vehicle Code for DWI for drinking and driving on a non-public highway; but depending on the circumstances, you could be liable for under the Penal Code for reckless endangerment (section 22.05(a)).
- notch656a 5y ago
  Can you cite a case where someone has been convicted under 22.05(a) for driving drunk on private property without actually having hit anyone? You can charge whatever you like, a prosecutor/grand jury can "indict a ham sandwich." Texas still has a sodomy law on the books too (although enforcing it has been stricken by supreme court).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 5y ago
    Reckless endangerment does not require you actually hit anyone. Where did you get that from? Texas Penal Code 6.03(c): "A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint." And what does the now-void sodomy law have to do with anything? You're also mixing up indictment with conviction. At any rate, you don't have to have a fact pattern that precisely matches a previously-recorded case to think "gee, maybe this is a bad idea and puts me at risk of violating some law." Most cases involve fact patterns that are at least somewhat different from previous case law. A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases.
    - notch656a 5y ago