Vehicle tint laws for civilians vs government vehicles

[AustinBR]

They are not and the tint law, while convenient and a safety measure for police, is one of the many unjust laws where the whole of society is inconvenienced for the sake of a few. Unjust laws increase police contact in conflict with society, and really hinder relationships with people in neighborhoods that would benefit from positive relationships. Country Club residents generally don't get pulled over for tint in their own neighborhoods...and they certainly do not -all- have tint tags.

How is the tint law unjust?

Dark tint makes it harder to see out of a vehicle.
Harder to see out of a vehicle = higher potential for hitting something that you can't see.

Hitting things with a vehicle = bad

How is the "whole of society" being inconvenienced by being forced to be able to see out of their windows?

Keep in mind that we can't write laws in a way that targets certain people. There is a vision spectrum between "perfect vision" and "blind enough where you have to wear glasses to drive."

Maybe those with perfect vision can legally have a slightly darker tint and we exclue those who are closer to needing glasses?

I have 20/20 vision and can fairly okay out of my darker than LA allowed tint. If my vision deteroriated a bit, then I'd have a harder time and would need to either consider getting glasses, or removing tint so I could see to the same degree as before.

 

[Manimal]

How is the tint law unjust?

Dark tint makes it harder to see out of a vehicle.
Harder to see out of a vehicle = higher potential for hitting something that you can't see.

Hitting things with a vehicle = bad

How is the "whole of society" being inconvenienced by being forced to be able to see out of their windows?

Keep in mind that we can't write laws in a way that targets certain people. There is a vision spectrum between "perfect vision" and "blind enough where you have to wear glasses to drive."

Maybe those with perfect vision can legally have a slightly darker tint and we exclue those who are closer to needing glasses?

I have 20/20 vision and can fairly okay out of my darker than LA allowed tint. If my vision deteroriated a bit, then I'd have a harder time and would need to either consider getting glasses, or removing tint so I could see to the same degree as before.

You're saying that the dark tinted LEA vehicles put people at more risk than they otherwise would be if the windows were not tinted, through the obstruction of vision?

 

[GunRelated]

You're saying that the dark tinted LEA vehicles put people at more risk than they otherwise would be if the windows were not tinted, through the obstruction of vision?

"but the benefits outweigh the risks"

 

[AustinBR]

You're saying that the dark tinted LEA vehicles put people at more risk than they otherwise would be if the windows were not tinted, through the obstruction of vision?

Absolutley.

In 2016 there were about 3.4M registered drivers in Louisiana.

According to a quick Google search, as of 2017 Louisiana has about 18,000 cops.

Giving 3.4 million drivers the green light to make it harder to see out of their vehicle is in no way comparable to allowing X% of cops to do the same.

Plus, we could probably further divide out the 3.4M drivers and figure out that cops are probably on average better drivers than the average driver, or that they have better vision, or whatever. It just doesn't matter, though. The risk vs reward for allowing the LE security exception is already considered by the law, as it stands. There is literally an exception to the law so LE can take the risk of having less vision in exchange for the benefits that come with it.

 

[AustinBR]

"but the benefits outweigh the risks"

Ah, you get it now

 

[Manimal]

"but the benefits outweigh the risks"

"For me, not for thee!"

 

[thperez1972]

"For me, not for thee!"

The exemptions to the law are based on need not want. Built into the law are security and medical exemptions based on need. For those who do not qualify for an exemption, a limited number of option exist. They can talk to their representatives and create a grassroots movement to have the laws changed. They can ignore the law they believe is unjust or unconstitutional and fight and bring the law up for judicial review if they are given a ticket. Or they can whine on an anonymous internet site until they get their way. Of those 3 options, and there may be more not listed here, I would guess that 2 of them have a much hight chance of success than the third one.

 

[Manimal]

Ah, you get it now

Did you know that since 1979 about 10,000 Innocent Bystanders have been killed by Police involved High Speed pursuits? The vast majority of those contacts were made for minor infractions, like tint. When you add officers and 'suspects', those numbers go over 18,000 dead since 1979. I bet more officers were killed making contact over tint than were saved because they had tint.

One of the best friends I ever had was killed by police, who ran him off the road during a high speed chase, and my aunt's car was totaled by police cars who struck her, while they were in pursuit of someone. It is not really a safe assumption to make, that police officers drive better than average people. It's not like they really go around killing people on purpose, but they do put other people at risk over trivial things on a regular basis...like tint.

 

[MOTOR51]

No thanks, not a fan of jobs where I'm punished for turning in coworkers who are PoS, and put me and others in danger because they are PoS, or where Unions make me look bad. Years of studying Criminology and Sociology in school, being an early and very active member of Bayou Shooter, meeting people from around the world, doing firearms training with law enforcement, government employees, and "gun guys" from around the world, working in some of the highest crime areas of the nation and with the children that live there, and being a student of history gives me enough insight on the job. It has helped me understand many problems in society, and ways to improve social challenges with Conservative values rather than through liberal authoritarianism that is prevalent in community Law. I'm sorry if you find my perspective personally insulting.

Not at all insulted, actually quite the opposite. I enjoy insight into the thoughts of people who know my job just because they studied criminology. Your firearms training and education credentials alone make you more than likely over qualified for law enforcement. But in all seriousness this site is strictly for entertainment for me so I don’t take any of this personally. If you see LEO out there make sure to wave, it might be me waving back but you won’t be able to see me through my tint


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Bigchillin83]

when i grow up i wann be like motor51....

the cool cop
have a job an not even know how to do it (under qualified)
free veteran chp,ccw,ccl,cwp, ect ect
dark window tint


does that bout sum it up???

your a lucky man!!!!!!

 

[AustinBR]

Did you know that since 1979 about 10,000 Innocent Bystanders have been killed by Police involved High Speed pursuits? The vast majority of those contacts were made for minor infractions, like tint. When you add officers and 'suspects', those numbers go over 18,000 dead since 1979. I bet more officers were killed making contact over tint than were saved because they had tint.

One of the best friends I ever had was killed by police, who ran him off the road during a high speed chase, and my aunt's car was totaled by police cars who struck her, while they were in pursuit of someone. It is not really a safe assumption to make, that police officers drive better than average people. It's not like they really go around killing people on purpose, but they do put other people at risk over trivial things on a regular basis...like tint.

You misquoted the article. Per the USA Today article from 2015:

It stated that 11,506 people, including 6300 fleeing suspects, were killed in police chases from 1979 to 2013.

What this doesn't state is how many of the additional 5200 were in the same vehicle as the fleeing suspect.

In 2013, the number of chase-related deaths was 322, compared to 317 in 1990.

Regardless, to assert that police are at fault for people dying running from them is silly. If a murder suspect was being chased by police, they stopped the pursuit, and he pulled up to your significant other's house and murdered him/her, I imagine you'd probably wish they didn't cease the chase.

Sure, there are arguments to be made against chasing someone who is fleeing when they get pulled over for some minor traffic offense.....but....most of those people aren't just fleeing because of the traffic offense.

 

[bigtattoo79]

"For me, not for thee!"

You do realize not every LEO is automatically allowed to just tint their windows. I know of 2 departments that only allow it for certain positions.

I know more LEOs that wanted tint and were told no than I know that actually have tint.

 

[Bigchillin83]

You do realize not every LEO is automatically allowed to just tint their windows. I know of 2 departments that only allow it for certain positions.

I know more LEOs that wanted tint and were told no than I know that actually have tint.

How dare you speak those lies!!!! you cant fool us!!!! you and motor51 must be working behind the scenes on this one

 

[AustinBR]

You do realize not every LEO is automatically allowed to just tint their windows. I know of 2 departments that only allow it for certain positions.

I know more LEOs that wanted tint and were told no than I know that actually have tint.

Fake news, that doesn't fit the narrative above.

 

[Manimal]

You misquoted the article. Per the USA Today article from 2015:

It stated that 11,506 people, including 6300 fleeing suspects, were killed in police chases from 1979 to 2013.

What this doesn't state is how many of the additional 5200 were in the same vehicle as the fleeing suspect.

In 2013, the number of chase-related deaths was 322, compared to 317 in 1990.

Regardless, to assert that police are at fault for people dying running from them is silly. If a murder suspect was being chased by police, they stopped the pursuit, and he pulled up to your significant other's house and murdered him/her, I imagine you'd probably wish they didn't cease the chase.

Sure, there are arguments to be made against chasing someone who is fleeing when they get pulled over for some minor traffic offense.....but....most of those people aren't just fleeing because of the traffic offense.

You do relaize that data gets updated, right? That numbers from 2015-2022 go up...not down? That not everyone researches by reading the top article that google provides? ...but go on.

 

[AustinBR]

You do relaize that data gets updated, right? That numbers from 2015-2022 go up...not down? That not everyone researches by reading the top article that google provides? ...but go on.

Can you post the link to the updated article?

Because the numbers from the article I referenced are actually higher than the numbers you referred to...so it sounds like they went down...?

 

[MOTOR51]

when i grow up i wann be like motor51....

the cool cop
have a job an not even know how to do it (under qualified)
free veteran chp,ccw,ccl,cwp, ect ect
dark window tint


does that bout sum it up???

your a lucky man!!!!!!

Haha, you must know me well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Magdump]

As I said before, you’re trying to create a subjective standard. That won’t work. What may work when one person does it may be dangerous when another person does it. But the other person feels it’s their right because they see the one person do it. That’s why there needs to be an objective standard.

Now if there were a way to answer my question in a serious way to make me look bad, a number of people on here would agree that you would jump on that chance. But you posted a nonsense answer, proving my point there was no one serious answer possible because immoral and danger to self and others is subjective.

Im not trying to create a standard, I’m just leaving comments on a forum. You assume too much.

A person can be a danger on interstate at any speed from zero to as fast as a car will go. That’s just a fact. No nonsense involved on my end. Nobody’s trying to make you look bad. I’d like to see a list of people who agree with your theory that I’d answer your question in a way to make you look bad, whatever that means. Maybe the question was nonsense?

 

[thperez1972]

Did you know that since 1979 about 10,000 Innocent Bystanders have been killed by Police involved High Speed pursuits? The vast majority of those contacts were made for minor infractions, like tint. When you add officers and 'suspects', those numbers go over 18,000 dead since 1979. I bet more officers were killed making contact over tint than were saved because they had tint.

I bet more officers' lives were saved because of they had tint than were killed making contact over tint.

There is no accurate way to measure actions that would have been taken had a situation been different. Therefore, I cannot prove my statement and you cannot prove your statement. Each statement is pure opinion with nothing factual to back it up and each statement should be ignored in a logical argument.

One of the best friends I ever had was killed by police, who ran him off the road during a high speed chase, and my aunt's car was totaled by police cars who struck her, while they were in pursuit of someone. It is not really a safe assumption to make, that police officers drive better than average people. It's not like they really go around killing people on purpose, but they do put other people at risk over trivial things on a regular basis...like tint.

 

[thperez1972]

Im not trying to create a standard, I’m just leaving comments on a forum. You assume too much.

You said you believed "Immoral" and "danger to anyone" were not subjective terms. That should make the objective terms. If it's objective, it can be measured. That means on one side of a line is moral and safe and on the other side is immoral and danger. The line used to compare things on either side of it is a standard.

A person can be a danger on interstate at any speed from zero to as fast as a car will go. That’s just a fact. No nonsense involved on my end. Nobody’s trying to make you look bad. I’d like to see a list of people who agree with your theory that I’d answer your question in a way to make you look bad, whatever that means. Maybe the question was nonsense?

No, the question wasn't nonsense. And off the top of my head, from the people participating in this particular train wreck, I'd bet AustinBR would say that you would act on any opportunity to prove me wrong. And I'm pretty sure there's another one in this thread who likes to stay pretty neutral most of the time so I'll decline to call him out by name.