cager rant, part 2

[upflying]

Yesterday I investigated a collision that shocked my senses to no end. Never have I seen or witnessed such sub-human stupidity.

A call goes out of a collision involving a child who was ejected from a vehicle. I respond to the scene with what little speed my Harley can muster.

What I discover during my investigation is a four-door 1985 Chevrolet Cavalier loaded with SEVEN people. One adult and four children are in the back seat meant for THREE people. The adult is the mother of the four children, aged 2 to 6. In the front is an adult driver and she is the mother of a child seated alone in the right front seat. Both front seats are individual "bucket" seats.

The poorly maintained and uninsured Chevy was making a legal left turn at an intersection when suddenly the right rear passenger door flew open. The two year old occupant sitting next to the door falls and tumbles out onto the roadway. The car stops in the intersection. The child picks herself up and quickly re-enters the stopped car. The car pulls forward and stops near the intersection. Numerous horrified onlookers call to report what they had seen.

The child fortunately appeared to be uninjured. She was transported to a hospital for precautionary reasons.

How is it that there are parents and drivers who allow children to ride in vehicles unrestrained and without child seats? Children cannot make safe choices for themselves and the adults present were negligent in their responsibilities towards the young who depend on us. There have been child seat laws in California for 25 years. How is that this stuff still exists? I wanted to express my outrage at the adults who allowed this to needlessly occur but I could not do so due to my inability to speak Spanish.

A child endangerment investigation continues.

[Quinn]

What vehicle could they afford that would have places for that many child seats?

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

What vehicle could they afford that would have places for that many child seats?

 

Here you go

[subvet]

There have been child seat laws in California for 25 years. How is that this stuff still exists? I wanted to express my outrage at the adults who allowed this to needlessly occur but I could not do so due to my inability to speak Spanish.

A child endangerment investigation continues.

 

proof positive that you cannot legislate common sense. also an indication that perhaps there are some that do not have the means to comply with those laws. Is it a symptom of culture, or is it a simple case of a family living on a hand-to-mouth existence?

[David]

There are two separate things, here, and it's really muddling things to discuss them all together without distinction.

 

First, the occupants had more people than seat belts and they weren't using the ones they had. Big whoop. Every one of our families did the same thing before the law changed. Laws are laws, and we all choose the ones to obey. Laws have nothing to do with underlying ethics/morals. They're just what our society--at a particular point in time--decides we should live by to keep order and protect innocent people. Just because there's a law against something doesn't make it a worse transgression than another form of stupidity against which there is no law.

 

Second, the door flew open. Big whoop again. Accidents happen. I put our oldest into the front seat of the pickup truck and he crawled out the other door, which I thought was locked, and landed on his head on the pavement. I took off one time and didn't check the latch on the right side door and it sprung open at altitude.

 

I don't understand the indignation. If this had been white, legal Mormons heading to a mission assignment, I doubt we'd see the same indignation.

[Redbrick]

Thanks Bob for posting a description of this incident.....I'm sure you see a lot of idotic things driver do and just shake your head but this one hit home with you....Me too...We all have a normal desire to care for children (all children) and when an adult puts them at risk it is upsetting....Some responses to your post surprised me.... It appears they intrepreted your post differently than I did and differenty than I feel you meant it......

 

 

[Vicious_Cycler]

I don't understand the indignation. If this had been white, legal Mormons heading to a mission assignment, I doubt we'd see the same indignation.

 

David, respectfully, I'm not buying your inference here. Bob's indignation appears to be based on the fact that the Cali seat belt law has been in place for 25 years (30 years in TN http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=8760 ). He's asking how this continues to happen, it shouldn't be news to anyone, even "white, legal Mormons heading to a mission assignment". I daresay his indignation would have been greater for "white, legal Mormons heading to a mission assignment".

 

The no hablas espanol remark seems incidental. As stated, he wanted to express outrage for the consequences of this situation. I assume he could have done so in English. He may have been able to so in German or French as well, but we just don't know. Really, all we can infer is that Bob does not speak Spanish.

 

Finally, I reread the original post twice before replying. I can't find any reference made to the residential status of these people presumed or otherwise. So where did you get that they may be illegally in the U.S.? Perhaps we should all back off the moral high-ground a little, but we've all got our thing.

 

 

 

[upflying]

There are two separate things, here, and it's really muddling things to discuss them all together without distinction.

 

First, the occupants had more people than seat belts and they weren't using the ones they had. Big whoop. Every one of our families did the same thing before the law changed. Laws are laws, and we all choose the ones to obey. Laws have nothing to do with underlying ethics/morals. They're just what our society--at a particular point in time--decides we should live by to keep order and protect innocent people. Just because there's a law against something doesn't make it a worse transgression than another form of stupidity against which there is no law.

 

Second, the door flew open. Big whoop again. Accidents happen. I put our oldest into the front seat of the pickup truck and he crawled out the other door, which I thought was locked, and landed on his head on the pavement. I took off one time and didn't check the latch on the right side door and it sprung open at altitude.

 

I don't understand the indignation. If this had been white, legal Mormons heading to a mission assignment, I doubt we'd see the same indignation.

I agree we as adults choose which laws to obey and accept the consequences if we don't. Children on the other hand do not have the right to decide and choose which laws to obey. Parents, guardians and often times government is tasked with the responsibility of protecting children. Kill yourself if you wish but don't expose a child to your decision.

 

Yep, accidents happen. Having a child fall out of a moving vehicle in a busy intersection is a big whoop.

 

Not sure about playing the race card. My indignation would have been applied equally regardless of race, gender, creed, color, sexual orientation or religious preference. Stupidity is an equal opportunity employer.

[David]

Bob, I don't think you're even trying to understand what I'm saying.

 

Kill yourself if you wish but don't expose a child to your decision.

 

Right. Which is EXACTLY what you did with your kids when they were young (assuming you have kids) before there were seat belts. right? But now, because there's a law, it's morally like killing or abusing or neglecting them?

 

Not sure about playing the race card.

 

I can't see any other reason to bring up "Spanish" in that way, but it wouldn't be fair for me to speculate, though it seems like inserting "Spanish" into a story like this means only one thing to me.

 

I'm not upset, and I certainly don't want to upset you. You were being the good guy and all that. I just think these judgment calls are hilarious. There are hundreds of things we all used to do without a second thought, but now we're suddenly completely irresponsible parents! Who need to be prosecuted?

[Vicious_Cycler]

I can't see any other reason to bring up "Spanish" in that way...

Maybe the point is he was unable to voice his outrage to them due to the language barrier.

 

There are hundreds of things we all used to do without a second thought, but now we're suddenly completely irresponsible parents! Who need to be prosecuted?

25 years is sudden?

[David]

If it was a language barrier, I'd expect someone to refer to that specifically rather than the actual language. I don't know what's in Bob's mind, so I won't speculate further. You'd be ignorant to not consider the strong possibility that it's racist, though.

 

Yes, 25 years is sudden. Try taking a historical perspective. Or, failing that, consider the fact that most of the world is far more than 25 years "behind" our blessed enlightenment as the center of the universe, God bless America, where we set the ethical standard for all things parenting.

 

Or never mind.

[Vicious_Cycler]

If it was a language barrier, I'd expect someone to refer to that specifically rather than the actual language. I don't know what's in Bob's mind, so I won't speculate further. You'd be ignorant to not consider the strong possibility that it's racist, though.

That would not be my expectation at all. By specifying a language we now know Bob doesn't speak Spanish, they did speak Spanish rather than some other unnamed language, and we know all that from one single phrase. Brilliant! You won't speculate further, and then you do. Yes, you'd be ignorant not to consider any possibility, but strong ? Why are you giving racism more weight than any other possibility. Have you considered that you may have some prejudice about LEO's? Are you assuming that Bob is white-anglo? These questions may point more at you than Bob.

 

Yes, 25 years is sudden. Try taking a historical perspective. Or, failing that, consider the fact that most of the world is far more than 25 years "behind" our blessed enlightenment as the center of the universe, God bless America, where we set the ethical standard for all things parenting.

No, 25 years is not sudden, unless we're talking about glaciers. Historical perspective, meaning what? If the most of the world is behind the blessedly enlightened of parenting, then how come my kids ride in European Britax carseats and Perego strollers, of quality unmatched in the good ol' USA?

Those things cost a fortune, which is why I can't get a new bike

 

Finally, we going to have to agree to disagree soon, my ADD is acting up

 

 

[David]

You're hilarious--I'll give you that! Maybe we should get back to Bob's account.

 

The door flipped open on the turn. The likely possibility there seems like an honest mistake. That seems easier to believe than the parent booby-trapped the door, and then intentionally took a quick turn. You with me so far? So perhaps we can forgive this transgression.

 

The parent also had more people than seat belts in the car, and the seat belts weren't being affixed properly. This seems like the crux of the matter.

 

So Bob's reaction:

 

[This] shocked my senses to no end. Never have I seen or witnessed such sub-human stupidity.

 

Well, maybe they were poor. Maybe they had very little choice. Maybe that's how they grew up.

 

Maybe when YOUR parents did the same thing from time to time, they were "sub-humanly stupid" people. Or maybe 90% of the world's parents still or.

 

Or, maybe shit happens, you sometimes do what you need to do to get by, and live goes on.

 

I've gotten away with some real stupidity in my life, and I'll bet you have, too. Maybe instead of trying to scream at them he should have given them money to buy a car seat.

[Vicious_Cycler]

You're hilarious--I'll give you that!

Thanks David, I enjoyed the discussion .

 

Maybe when YOUR parents did the same thing from time to time, they were "sub-humanly stupid" people.

I wasn't too sure when I fell from my Dad's 1947 Chevy pickup. On the other hand, I'm the one who opened the door.

 

Or, maybe shit happens, you sometimes do what you need to do to get by, and live goes on.

 

I've gotten away with some real stupidity in my life, and I'll bet you have, too. Maybe instead of trying to scream at them he should have given them money to buy a car seat.

Too true. As an interesting footnote, Rutherford County, TN Sheriff takes donated car seats and provides them to people who can't afford one. We donated some when SWMBO wanted those damn Britaxes .

 

Safe travels!

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Being California, leader in all things in regards social services, I'll bet there is a program to which they could have applied to obtain child seats. Of course, that implies the ability to obtain knowledge about said program. Given the evidence, non-English speaking, from the type of car, probably poor and possibly recent immigrants from a country where the use of child restraint systems is not the norm, I'd be pretty hard pressed to place blame.

[Bullett]

What I discover during my investigation is a four-door 1985 Chevrolet Cavalier loaded with SEVEN people. One adult and four children are in the back seat meant for THREE people.

 

I don't understand the indignation. If this had been white, legal Mormons heading to a mission assignment, I doubt we'd see the same indignation.

 

When I started reading the OP, I figured Bob must have moved to Utah. More occupants than seat belts is pretty much standard operating procedure here in Utah.

 

 

 

 

[David]

I need to catch up on my Mormon social practices reading!

[Pilgrim]

Or, failing that, consider the fact that most of the world is far more than 25 years "behind" our blessed enlightenment as the center of the universe, God bless America, where we set the ethical standard for all things parenting.

 

David touches on an important point here, and it matters to our national debate on immigration and diversity. (semi-hijack) I say "semi-hijack" because it's something that Upflying has neglected to consider in his ire.

 

Immigration/diversity means more than fancy dances, funny hats, and new fast foods. It also means each of us (esp. cops) will be dealing with people who come from societies that have different levels of, uh, "social development" and in many cases, radically different social customs. That doesn't mean they are inferior humans but it does mean that they may not be a smooth fit into the USA for any number of reasons.

 

Dealing with this case specifically I'll pull a couple points together and speak about the elephant in the living room. The people were obviously latino and probably Mexican. They may or may not have been legally in the U.S. but it doesn't matter; they are cultural strangers, and probably dirt-poor at that. They will have come from a society where their education, if any at all, stopped at about fifth grade, standards of safety and hygiene are nearly nonexistent and certainly not taught publicly. Seatbelts are not on their radar screen any more than they were on ours in 1955.

 

So they have not had the benefit(?) of years of exposure to our ways, and furthermore, they may not even be able to participate in them to our satisfaction.

 

This issue extends far, far beyond using seatbelts or not, and it affects each of us in ways we often don't expect or even suspect. I'll not expand on that further for to do so would constitute a full hijack.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

Well, maybe they were poor. Maybe they had very little choice. Maybe that's how they grew up.

 

Maybe when YOUR parents did the same thing from time to time, they were "sub-humanly stupid" people.

That's was some of my thoughts too as I read this. People everywhere often are forced to do what they have to, maybe don't even want to, to get by in the world. Anywhere. Labeling them as "sub-human" seems harsh at best.

 

Oh that everyone should be so fortunate as most of us reading here to be able to afford a modern vehicle properly equipped with the latest safety features, and only needing to be used with the proper occupancy count.

 

A little compassion and understanding seems more in order than condemnation.

 

Oh and David, FWIW, I read racial innuendos in the original post too.

[Shaman97]

Oh and David, FWIW, I read racial innuendos in the original post too.

 

How is the use of the term 'racist' appropriate here? Because they speak a different language? Mexican is not a 'race' nor is Guatemalan, Peruvian or Costa Rican. French-Canadians are not a 'race' though they predominaantly speak the French language, and are just as close to the US as Mexicans are. I think the term 'racist' is being overused here, and elsewhere for dramatic effect.

[bakerzdosen]

OK, prejudice would probably be a more appropriate term then... Xenophobic sounds bad, but wouldn't be entirely incorrect.

 

And FWIW, I don't think that the original post is out of the ordinary. However, opinions of the average Joe from the US tend to be at least slightly prejudice of foreigners - unless they've actually left the North America for more than a two week vacation.

 

A friend of mine (very smart & well educated IMHO) from Arizona once asked me (after I'd returned from one of my trips to Costa Rica) "are the people in Costa Rica Mexican?" I sort of chuckled and said, "No, they're Costa Rican" hoping she'd catch her slip-up. No such luck... She then asked "Yeah I know, but are they Mexican?" It really surprised me that someone as intelligent as her could be so ignorant.

 

Then again, if your only experience with Mexicans (or Cubans, or Canadians, or Pakistanis, or Germans or...) were relatively uneducated migrant workers, you'd probably have some sort of immediate bias towards everyone from that country. People just forget sometimes that there are a LOT of brilliant people in [insert any country you like here] that haven't left because they have no need to go elsewhere to get a job. But then again, you don't have to leave the US to meet a well educated intelligent [insert country of origin here]. This country is nearly exclusively populated with them.

 

I think people forget the American Dream sometimes.

[upflying]

I purposely left out any reference to nationality or immigration status in my original post. To this day, I do not know the nationality nor the immigration status of the people I dealt with. I don't care nor is it relevant to the investigation. A person who speaks Spanish is not a race. Many countries besides Mexico speaks Spanish. To read between the lines and infer and imply I meant something else in my original post is speculation.

Police officers pretty much deal with laws on a black and white scale. Officers do have a bit of discretion when dealing with a situation that requires a gray scale interpretation of our laws. On a level playing field, it would be nice to say everyone is treated equally under the law. In reality, had this been a college educated, hottie soccer mom driving a 2008 Tahoe and one of her kids fell out, she would have been dealt with more harshly than someone who is poor, uneducated and does not speak English.

My indignation here is simply because a child was needlessly harmed. With today's political climate, I can understand the compassionate and empathetic comments from some that poor people are not responsible for their actions due to some social injustices. This is why we have judges, lawyers and your elected officials to put a spin on how our laws are enforced.

Fifth grade education or not, A mother of four placed needlessly her child at risk for the decision she made. That mother has a plethora of bi-lingual social services available to her. Those services include free car seats, information on how to assimilate in society and care for the children in moving vehicles.

 

[Husker Red]

Police officers pretty much deal with laws on a black and white scale.

 

That line struck me funny. So there is a different scale for white and black...

 

When I was about 6 years old my Mom was driving the pickup to the cornfield to deliver lunch to Dad. My brothers and I were crammed into the front seat with her - holding a thermos of water and a box of sandwiches. The passenger door popped open and my brother almost fell out. He was half-way out the door when I grabbed his arm and pulled him back in, so I was sort of a hero that day. I'm sure Mom would have never forgiven herself if something happened to him, but we got lucky that day. Live and learn.

 

I don't blame you a bit for being mad about what you saw. Seeing kids in danger can really get my blood boiling too. Hopefully the mother and kids learned a lesson that day and will be properly secured next time. Keep doing the good work.

[Vicious_Cycler]

You guys are killing me! I am unable to let this go unchallenged. I mean, really, you're just making assertions based on your own preconcieved notions and prejudices and ascribing them to someone else. None of these things are in the OP. Are you guys just dodging something uncomfortable about yourselves?

Dealing with this case specifically I'll pull a couple points together and speak about the elephant in the living room. The people were obviously latino and probably Mexican. They may or may not have been legally in the U.S. but it doesn't matter; they are cultural strangers, and probably dirt-poor at that.

This seems like pointing at the elephant in the room in order to avoid the mammoth, your own assumptions about people. Why are these people obviously latino, why are they probably Mexican? I thought they may have been Guatemalan. They could have been from Andalusian or Castilian, I hear they speak Spanish there. Probability notwithstanding, the OP does not state where they are from, so any speculating is based on your own notions. If you think statistically they are likely to be Mexican that's one thing, but they are not obviously anything but persons who spoke Spanish and not English. That is the only fact given, anything else is speculation based on the speculator. Are we to infer that you believe all Spanish speakers are poor? There's your mammoth.

Labeling them as "sub-human" seems harsh at best.

Bob did not label them as "sub-human" personally. He labeled the stupidity of their actions as "sub-human". That is quite another thing. If I labeled your sense of humor as subhuman that's all I'm talking about, I'm not labeling you as subhuman. Read the post before jumping on the moral bandwagon.

Oh and David, FWIW, I read racial innuendos in the original post too.

It seems more accurate to say you read racial innuendos INTO the original post. I read that as Bob was frustrated b/c he was unable to voice his outrage as he doesn't speak Spanish and they didn't speak English. I read this as Bob is venting frustration to the board b/c he couldn't vent it to the people at whom he wished it directed. The only racial judgements I see here are being made by you guys.

OK, prejudice would probably be a more appropriate term then... Xenophobic sounds bad, but wouldn't be entirely incorrect.

Astounding!! Where is the prejudice? Prejudice is a completely inappropriate term. Xenophobe? Now what's your evidence from the OP that Bob is a xenophobe? I don't read anything in there to support your using that term correctly. That's just seems to be hyperbole for effect. Xenophobia just ain't in there. Maybe the people in question didn't use carseats b/c they were neo-Luddites.

 

My sense of the whole matter is this. Any time someone points out a difference b/w people, there is an immediate kneejerk backlash from the self-ordained ministers of compassion and tolerance. In today's artificially homogenized "politically correct" culture, an observation of difference is labeled as racist, prejudiced, xenophobic, insensitive, etc. However, under the rules of logic, it is not incorrect for the pot to call the kettle black, if in fact the kettle is black. It would not be wrong for the teacup to make this observation as well.

[russell_bynum]

The people were obviously latino and probably Mexican.

 

Probability notwithstanding,

 

 

Are we to infer that you believe all Spanish speakers are poor?

 

I'm pretty sure that Pilgrim was using that steel trap of a mind of his to infer that they were poor because it was seven people crammed into a 23 year old sedan.

 

Clearly that's a huge leap of logic. It could have been Bill Gates and the Board of Directors at Microsoft and the old Cavalier was actually a top-secret multi-million dollar testbed for the latest in magneto hydrodynamic propulsion systems.

 

And maybe they were speaking Spanish not because they were Mexican (as the probability would suggest given the location) but because they were actually speaking the ancient, lost language of the Inca's in an attempt to keep their conversations secret and safe from the prying ears of industrial spies...and the OP mistook what he heard for Spanish.

[Pilgrim]

Dealing with this case specifically I'll pull a couple points together and speak about the elephant in the living room. The people were obviously latino and probably Mexican. They may or may not have been legally in the U.S. but it doesn't matter; they are cultural strangers, and probably dirt-poor at that.

This seems like pointing at the elephant in the room in order to avoid the mammoth, your own assumptions about people. Why are these people obviously latino, why are they probably Mexican? I thought they may have been Guatemalan. They could have been from Andalusian or Castilian, I hear they speak Spanish there. Probability notwithstanding, the OP does not state where they are from, so any speculating is based on your own notions. If you think statistically they are likely to be Mexican that's one thing, but they are not obviously anything but persons who spoke Spanish and not English. That is the only fact given, anything else is speculation based on the speculator. Are we to infer that you believe all Spanish speakers are poor? There's your mammoth.

 

Vicious, double your meds tonight and stay home from work tomorrow. You need a day off or something.

 

Inferences about Mexican nationality here are probably accurate. I used that word, "probably", implying the that there are other possibilities, but not likely.

 

Thank you, Russell, for pointing out the obvious that he has overlooked.

 

Now let me expand even further, but at no great length.

 

I spent 33 years as an immigration officer of one sort or another. Since retirement eleven years ago I have continued to be involved in the field. I have worked all over the U.S. including some TDY in central California. Based on that experience, I can tell you these things:

 

• Someone who speaks no English is probably an alien since people born here normally speak the language and people who naturalize must prove they do before they become citizens.
  
• Fully half of the (illegal) alien population of the United States is from Mexico. Estimates vary, but even the Mexican government says at least 10 million of their citizens are here illegally. That doesn't begin to count the legal immigrants.
  
• They form a statistically large part of the California population. A recent survey shows that a huge proportion (as much as half, perhaps) of the male population of L.A. for example, under the age of 30 is foreign-born and most of them are Mexican.(Feel free to throw a BS flag on that since I can't cite the source tonight. That's why I say it vague terms.)
  
• By far and away, most of the Mexicans in this country are unskilled or, at best, semi-skilled workers because that's what they were in Mexico. Their income reflects that situation - they tend to be poor by our standards (although they're doing damned well by their own; that's why they're here). The car they were driving reflects that reality in this particular case.
  
• If you don't have any idea of how poor Mexico is then you probably don't appreciate this fact: If those folks are from Mexico (or the even-poorer Guatemala or El Salvador or Honduras) that was almost certainly the first car they've ever owned (assuming they did) and likely the first one they've ever driven. Seatbelts do not loom large in their consciousness, and it's got nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with cultural education.
  

 

Her specific nationality has nothing to do with it either; it's simply an assumed datum. Now, we could, in the alternative, assume that the driver was a bank manager from Madrid who speaks four major European languages and Aramaic in her spare time and just left the BMW at home while she ran the kids down to the polo field, but I doubt it. She was probably a poor Mexican who loves her kids just like I do mine - and in the future she'll be more careful.

 

Pilgrim

 

(Hmmm . . . I guess I didn't read all of your post, Russell, before I piled on with mine. Sorry.)

[SeanC]

Bob did not label them as "sub-human" personally. He labeled the stupidity of their actions as "sub-human". That is quite another thing. If I labeled your sense of humor as subhuman that's all I'm talking about, I'm not labeling you as subhuman.

Okay, what if you labeled someone's intelligence as subhuman? Would you then claim you did not label the person as subhuman, that you were just referring to the gray matter between his ears?

 

While you consider that, let me just add that the OP's decision to use the word "subhuman" (adverbially or otherwise) was incredibly not smart. Unless he really meant to imply what the word means, which I don't think he did (at least I hope he didn't).

 

The mistake in question was in fact a very human one. I tend to agree with David -- "big whup" -- but I understand how and why it pissed Bob off. We can all relate stories of how life was 25 years ago (I was going to share some anecdotes, but I don't think any of you would believe them), but Bob's job isn't to uphold the law as it was written 25 years ago. The situation he described was a very blatant violation of today's code. I wonder how people would react if he had described the same scenario but added, "But since they were obviously poor and spoke no English, I gave them a pass."?

[Pilgrim]

I wonder how people would react if he had described the same scenario but added, "But since they were obviously poor and spoke no English, I gave them a pass."?

 

Absolutely not! He should have called the local immigration office to come pick 'em up. At least, that's what happened in the old days.

 

Pilgrim

[Vicious_Cycler]

Vicious, double your meds tonight and stay home from work tomorrow. You need a day off or something.

Now Pilgrim, if I double those meds they'll start hunting me for doctor shopping.

 

Someone who speaks no English is probably an alien since people born here normally speak the language and people who naturalize must prove they do before they become citizens.

Fully half of the (illegal) alien population of the United States is from Mexico. Estimates vary, but even the Mexican government says at least 10 million of their citizens are here illegally. That doesn't begin to count the legal immigrants.

They form a statistically large part of the California population. A recent survey shows that a huge proportion (as much as half, perhaps) of the male population of L.A. for example, under the age of 30 is foreign-born and most of them are Mexican.(Feel free to throw a BS flag on that since I can't cite the source tonight. That's why I say it vague terms.)

By far and away, most of the Mexicans in this country are unskilled or, at best, semi-skilled workers because that's what they were in Mexico. Their income reflects that situation - they tend to be poor by our standards (although they're doing damned well by their own; that's why they're here). The car they were driving reflects that reality in this particular case.

If you don't have any idea of how poor Mexico is then you probably don't appreciate this fact: If those folks are from Mexico (or the even-poorer Guatemala or El Salvador or Honduras) that was almost certainly the first car they've ever owned (assuming they did) and likely the first one they've ever driven. Seatbelts do not loom large in their consciousness, and it's got nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with cultural education.

 

Her specific nationality has nothing to do with it either; it's simply an assumed datum.

I agree, her specific nationality is irrelevant. None of your points are in dispute. My argument is related to the injudicious use of terms like racist, prejudice, xenophobe, etc without proof from the OP. Would you excuse the use of these terms so easily? Yet, the discussion has focused on whether or not they were latino, Mexican, poor, or otherwise as though that is point. I believe even the rebuttals to my posts have skirted this issue.

 

I would venture to say that today most Americans have some type of relationship w/ persons who speak only Spanish. As a nurse, I have my share of daily encounters where I witness both smart and dumb decisions. My healthcare Espanol is improving exponentially (a good thing in my estimation). I assure you that I'm not prejudiced against them as a segment of the population.

Okay, what if you labeled someone's intelligence as subhuman? Would you then claim you did not label the person as subhuman, that you were just referring to the gray matter between his ears?

 

While you consider that, let me just add that the OP's decision to use the word "subhuman" (adverbially or otherwise) was incredibly not smart. Unless he really meant to imply what the word means, which I don't think he did (at least I hope he didn't).

If I labeled someone's intelligence as subhuman, that is exactly what I'm talking about and I wouldn't do it on the board without proof. Nor would I be talking about the gray matter, but rather the use of that gray matter. So I would claim that I did not the person as subhuman. This may be a vicious cycle (huh?), if I labeled your hygiene as subhuman I may still consider you intelligent, funny, sincere, all around great guy, or any other of a host of quailities.

 

If you object to the OP's use of the term subhuman that's fine, I get it. But does it warrant the use of the terms racist, prejudice, xenophobe, etc.? I don't think so. These are global terms in describing someone's character. As above, mentality, intelligence, hygiene, sincerity are but single attributes. So everyone piled on Bob w/ the glib use of objectionable terms for his use of a term they deemed objectionable. That's my point and I'm sticking to it.

 

[SeanC]

If I labeled someone's intelligence as subhuman, that is exactly what I'm talking about and I wouldn't do it on the board without proof. Nor would I be talking about the gray matter, but rather the use of that gray matter. So I would claim that I did not the person as subhuman. This may be a vicious cycle (huh?), if I labeled your hygiene as subhuman I may still consider you intelligent, funny, sincere, all around great guy, or any other of a host of quailities.

I think you're compartmentalizing and rationalizing too much, and in the process ignoring what the word actually means -- less than human. Sure, if you're using it jocularly to describe, say, someone's hygiene, particularly that of a friend, acquaintance, fellow board member, etc., the jocularity would most likely be evident in context to all but the most uptight PC henpeckers. But if you're using the term in all seriousness to describe someone's intelligence, and that someone happens to be of a different race or ethnicity than you, all bets are off. As a reasonable person, I don't know if I would immediately label you racist, prejudiced or xenophobic for doing so, but you would certainly give me some pause for doubt. At the very least, I would consider you foolish for choosing the term to begin with.

 

Why? Because contrary to what you may intend the word to mean, "subhuman" does not merely address aspects of one's character, but rather one's humanity. By definition (unless, again, you're being jocular or ironic). To put it another way, if your intent isn't global, you may want to re-consider the use of sweeping, global terms, especially those laden with dark historical meaning.

 

Having said that, I took Bob's post for what it was (and what he said it was) -- a rant. He was pissed and venting his frustrations. That's my take anyway.

 

PS: I remember standing in front of the seat with my chin on the dash looking out the front window as we drove into town... on a highway.... in Montana.... before there were posted speed limits. Seatbelts? They were those odd straps and buckles wedged behind the seat cushions, down with the spare change, CornNut dust and pop-sicle sticks.

[Vicious_Cycler]

I think you're compartmentalizing and rationalizing too much, and in the process ignoring what the word actually means -- less than human.

 

But if you're using the term in all seriousness to describe someone's intelligence, and that someone happens to be of a different race or ethnicity than you, all bets are off. As a reasonable person, I don't know if I would immediately label you racist, prejudiced or xenophobic for doing so, but you would certainly give me some pause for doubt. At the very least, I would consider you foolish for choosing the term to begin with.

Compartmentalizing and rationalizing too much? How about more than you would? But I honestly believe one can have a trait(s) on a less than human level while superhuman in others. I just don't buy your contention that subhuman can only be used globally.

 

Now why are all bets off if that someone happens to be of different race or ehnicity? So why is the subhuman label any less offensive if they are of your same race or ethnicity? What is it that gives you pause? I just don't get that.

 

This sounds like you're saying no member of one particular race or ethnicity may criticise or comment negatively upon a member of different race or ethnicity without that criticism or comment being racilly motivated or at least tainted. I believe you're compartamentalizing race and ethnicity too much. The problem w/ this attitude is that it dilutes the true instances racism, prejudice, and xenophobia.

 

PS: I remember standing in front of the seat with my chin on the dash looking out the front window as we drove into town... on a highway.... in Montana.... before there were posted speed limits. Seatbelts? They were those odd straps and buckles wedged behind the seat cushions, down with the spare change, CornNut dust and pop-sicle sticks.

We have at least all agreed that our parents allowed what would now be considered unsafe situations. And mostly we all recalled those situations fondly. That's just not my point. The point is people piling on the OP w/ over-the-top criticism based on their own speculation. I can't see where anyone has yet acknowledged that the harsh words for the OP are out of line

[upflying]

"I can't see where anyone has yet acknowledged that the harsh words for the OP are out of line".

 

Thank you for the support, Vicious.

 

I am not holding my breath for an apology. LEO's do a job that is seldom rewarded and quickly criticized. Many in society have had direct contact with LEO's. I would assume most of those contacts were probably perceived as being negative. This post gave some members an opportunity to pay "me" back for that unjustified speeding ticket they may have received in the past. The reaction of some here is commonly what is found in a LEO's day-to-day routine. Citizens routinely harass, condemn, abuse, falsely accuse and profanely insult officers. People do this because they know we just have to sit there and take in the a$$ and smile.

If there is an apology needed, it should be from me. What I thought would be an example of outrageous behavior of a motorist has turned into something bordering on libelous.

It will be awhile before I share my experiences again.

[David]

Geez, Bob. You don't wear the martyr suit all that well. If you don't want discussion, then don't post (which is what I guess you've decided on your own). I stand 100% behind my comments without any apology.

 

That is not, however, because I have anything against law enforcement officers. I've had many points of contact with them (including managing the Chief of Police for a couple of years), and those incidents have nearly all been positive. The few bad ones stood out because they were so rare. With the low pay and shitty conditions I'm surprised the people that the job attracts are as dedicated as they are.

 

LEOs make bold statements on this board all the time, and frequently when "discussion" ensues, this martyr things pops to the surface. It's something I don't understand and in fact feel like there must be a missing piece that I can't see, because it happens quite often in a very predictable way. Maybe I just shouldn't "discuss" any threads like this.

[SeanC]

Compartmentalizing and rationalizing too much? How about more than you would?

Well, I'm a writer, so I compartmentalize and rationalize in exactly the right amount. Any more than that is too much.

 

But I honestly believe one can have a trait(s) on a less than human level while superhuman in others. I just don't buy your contention that subhuman can only be used globally.

It's not just my contention... it's what the word actually means. How can another human possess a trait that is somehow less than human? Again, if you're speaking jocularly or ironically, sure. But if you're serious, your word choice disparages one's humanity. It's global. Fundamentally so. It's not a term imbued with fine distinctions or open to hair-splitting. When you use the term, you are in fact saying, "You are less of a human being than I am."

 

Be careful with that. And if you're using it to disparage a person belonging to a different race, don't be surprised by the opprobrium, scorn and contempt that may well follow.

 

This sounds like you're saying no member of one particular race or ethnicity may criticise or comment negatively upon a member of different race or ethnicity without that criticism or comment being racilly motivated or at least tainted.

Criticize? Er, not quite. The term "subhuman" is not exactly a critique. It questions whether one is worthy of a human being. Our closest non-human relatives reside in jungles and zoos, okay? You're free to trivialize the term, invent narrow new definitions for it, etc., but that doesn't change what the word really means or implies.

[Pilgrim]

It will be awhile before I share my experiences again.

 

Awww, shoot, Bob. Go ahead and post any time. Your avatar shows you to be old enough to have a thick skin? Verdad?

 

Just FYI, I did not intend my first post that was more or less responsive to you to be critical. Rather, I hoped that being reminded of some realities of 21st century America would take the edge off your ire. I'm sure you know them, but all of us lose sight of what we know sometimes when we're mad.

 

Pilgrim

[motorman587]

Yesterday I investigated a collision that shocked my senses to no end. Never have I seen or witnessed such sub-human stupidity.

A call goes out of a collision involving a child who was ejected from a vehicle. I respond to the scene with what little speed my Harley can muster.

What I discover during my investigation is a four-door 1985 Chevrolet Cavalier loaded with SEVEN people. One adult and four children are in the back seat meant for THREE people. The adult is the mother of the four children, aged 2 to 6. In the front is an adult driver and she is the mother of a child seated alone in the right front seat. Both front seats are individual "bucket" seats.

The poorly maintained and uninsured Chevy was making a legal left turn at an intersection when suddenly the right rear passenger door flew open. The two year old occupant sitting next to the door falls and tumbles out onto the roadway. The car stops in the intersection. The child picks herself up and quickly re-enters the stopped car. The car pulls forward and stops near the intersection. Numerous horrified onlookers call to report what they had seen.

The child fortunately appeared to be uninjured. She was transported to a hospital for precautionary reasons.

How is it that there are parents and drivers who allow children to ride in vehicles unrestrained and without child seats? Children cannot make safe choices for themselves and the adults present were negligent in their responsibilities towards the young who depend on us. There have been child seat laws in California for 25 years. How is that this stuff still exists? I wanted to express my outrage at the adults who allowed this to needlessly occur but I could not do so due to my inability to speak Spanish.

A child endangerment investigation continues.

 

Bob,

Worked one like that a couple of years ago. Young Mom making a left turn, door flys open, baby in child seat not buckled and baby seat not secured in vehicle. Both going flying out. Baby not injured, how I have not idea. Lucky nobody ran over the baby. Mom cited for not have baby secured...........

[90%angel]

I think this whole thing has been blown a little out of proportion. Bob was venting (usually that means you say stuff that, if you'd had a little time and cooling off period beore posting, you might edit) about a stupid situation he saw. Oh sure, 25 years ago before we knew better it wasn't considered stupid, but it was still stupid, no? Or perhaps "unsafe" is a better word? But then we're just arguing about semantics. (Although, Sean and Vicious seem to be doing that now about the 'sub-human' word...I think Sean said this as well, but I'm pretty sure that's one of those words that the OP might have changed if he weren't venting at the time, so let's let that one slide, eh?)

 

Kum bay yah my lord, kum bay yah...

 

[Vicious_Cycler]

Well, I'm a writer, so I compartmentalize and rationalize in exactly the right amount. Any more than that is too much.

Then I am indeed fortunate to benfit from your singular expertise in what may be compartamentalized and to what degree

It's not just my contention... it's what the word actually means.

Don't think I'll be taking your word for that given the circumstances. When experts disagree:

From Merriam-Webster:Main Entry: 1sub·hu·man

Pronunciation: \ˌsəb-ˈhyü-mən, -ˈyü-\

Function: adjective

Date: 1793

: less than human: as a: failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings b: unsuitable to or unfit for human beings c: of or relating to a taxonomic group lower than that of humans http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subhuman

Sean, please direct your attention to "a", here individual traits are given as examples. Hurray, point for Vicious !

 

From Dictionary.com: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

sub·hu·man Audio Help /sʌbˈhyumən or, often, -ˈyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhb-hyoo-muhn or, often, -yoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. less than or not quite human.

2. almost human: In some respects, the porpoise is subhuman.

[Origin: 1785–95; sub- + human]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subhuman

I directed my attention to the above. Dooh, point for seanc!

 

It would appear that the experts disagree as we shall have to do.

 

Criticize? Er, not quite. The term "subhuman" is not exactly a critique. It questions whether one is worthy of a human being. Our closest non-human relatives reside in jungles and zoos, okay? You're free to trivialize the term, invent narrow new definitions for it, etc., but that doesn't change what the word really means or implies.

See above. What one infers from its use is subjective, especially in this discusion.

 

Finally, my sense is that this rousing discusion is winding down. This has been a good example of what I like about this board, and see as great difference b/w BMWSportTouring and ADV. I enjoy ADV but the unspoken rules for the two boards are different.

 

As I lurker and a later member here, I noted that gratuitous assertions are challenged. Sometimes they are challenged strongly, but virtually always politely, and to my knowlegde never personally. Someone posting claims w/o adequate proof should expect to be challenged here. I wonder if flames would not have been the result at ADV.

 

It is truly invigorating to read other opinions and opposing points of view. I don't believe we learn anything when we're always in agreement. I have always enjoyed evaluating others' thoughtful cogent arguments and constructing my own.

 

However, I want to make it clear that I am not board-trolling, nor am I just getting pleasure from the lively discourse. I really believe the criticisms of OP where out of balance with his statements. LEO or not, I felt some of the responses to his statements were just too unmeasured.

 

Done! (if I can find my double meds ).

 

 

 

 

[SeanC]

Um, ooookay.... I say the word means "less than human." You cite a dictionary saying the same thing, and then award yourself a "point"? I have no response to that...

 

But let's sum up what you're saying.... I'll paraphrase: "I'm not labeling you subhuman; I just consider your intelligence, i.e., the way you think and act, to be less than human. Subhuman, if you will. Please don't take it the wrong way because I'm restricting my opinion to just one specific aspect of your membership in the human race -- your ability to cogitate. Again, I don't mean that in a bad way. I'm not saying your ability to think is sub-porpoise or sub-primate, after all. Just subhuman."

 

Good luck with that.

 

Was the response to Bob's post unmeasured? I don't think so. If anything, I think they were more balanced than the OP. Hence the problem. How measured was it to refer to a group of Spanish-speaking immigrants as "subhumanly stupid"? It drew some sharp criticism here, but had he used the same language in, say, an incident report, he'd be fired for it. So he vented here. I just considered it a Michael Richards Moment. Nothing more.

[Vicious_Cycler]

Um, ooookay.... I say the word means "less than human." You cite a dictionary saying the same thing, and then award yourself a "point"? I have no response to that...

 

But if you're serious, your word choice disparages one's humanity. It's global. Fundamentally so. It's not a term imbued with fine distinctions or open to hair-splitting. When you use the term, you are in fact saying, "You are less of a human being than I am."

 

less than human: as a: failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings

Um ooookay... You say the means "less than human" in a global sense. The Merriam definition indicates it can it can be used

to describe individual traits hence the use of "or" as in morality or intelligence. Thus this definition is not saying the same thing as you.

 

Your opinion as to what it "really" means is immaterial here. The words in the definitions speak for themselves. Perhaps you have no response to b/c you're not reading the definition as presented.

 

So let me clarify for you what I'm saying, "I not labeling you as a subhuman; I just consider your intelligence in this matter (endangering your child) to fail to attain the level associated with normal human beings. Subhuman, if you will.

 

Now please don't take it the wrong way as a comment on you as a person because I'm restricting my opinion to this one specific incident. Again, I don't mean that in a bad way. I'm not saying your decision in this matter is sub-porpoise or sub-primate, after all. Just subhuman."

 

If by "good luck with that" you mean you're wishing me luck that someone would not be offended by the term, I'll take it as I assume you mean it, cum grano salis. But our difference seems to lie, in part, as to whether one should ever say something that may be considered offensive.

 

If something is true, it is true without regard for "feelings". If I make a subhuman move and you call me on it, I won't like it, but if you're right I'll accept that you're right. And I'll accept it without worrying about if you still think that otherwise I'm an all around great guy. But maybe that's just me.

 

 

[SeanC]

For some reason you think that one's humanity, one's claim to full membership in the human race, is merely a specific aspect of one's self -- like sense of humor, color preference, ability to comply with public safety ordinances, golf handicap, etc. ("Your backswing is subhuman Joe. You should work on that.") Well, you're mistaken in that belief, and repeating it doesn't change anything.

 

Again, good luck with that.

[Vicious_Cycler]

Surely you have bothered to read the definitions. I'm not merely repeating an opinion as you seem to be doing. Performance in some aspect of some thing, e.g., backswing, that is less than expected of normal human performance speaks only to that aspect. The person's claim to membership in the race or species is not being questioned.

 

Furthermore, your next backswing or drive or joke or batch of brownies may be superhuman. Would you object to that as a valid description as well? It seems you believe a human cannot be either sub- or superhuman in their performance of anything b/c they are human. Your failed argument is not with me but the dictionary writers, the English language, and rules of logic.

 

It seems you believe a human cannot be more or less than human in any aspect of performance b/c they are human. It seems you believe I am mistaken b/c you believe I am mistaken. Review an elementary logic and critical thinking book for information on logical fallacies. This discussion appears at an impasse. That's okay, many discussions end in that way.

[upflying]

Was the response to Bob's post unmeasured? I don't think so. If anything, I think they were more balanced than the OP. Hence the problem. How measured was it to refer to a group of Spanish-speaking immigrants as "subhumanly stupid"? It drew some sharp criticism here, but had he used the same language in, say, an incident report, he'd be fired for it. So he vented here. I just considered it a Michael Richards Moment. Nothing more.

 

At no time did I refer to the people involved as "Spanish speaking immigrants". Please don't quote something I did not say. Yes they spoke Spanish, but their nationality or immigration status is unknown. Please enlighten me and tell the board what an immigrant looks like?

 

[SeanC]

Was the response to Bob's post unmeasured? I don't think so. If anything, I think they were more balanced than the OP. Hence the problem. How measured was it to refer to a group of Spanish-speaking immigrants as "subhumanly stupid"? It drew some sharp criticism here, but had he used the same language in, say, an incident report, he'd be fired for it. So he vented here. I just considered it a Michael Richards Moment. Nothing more.

 

At no time did I refer to the people involved as "Spanish speaking immigrants". Please don't quote something I did not say. Yes they spoke Spanish, but their nationality or immigration status is unknown. Please enlighten me and tell the board what an immigrant looks like?

In your years of law enforcement, how many native-born US citizens have you encountered who spoke only Spanish and no English? I use the term "native-born" because, as an officer of the law I'm sure you're aware, speaking English is a requirement in order to become a naturalized citizen. According to the USCIS, "Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language."

 

So is it still your assertion you didn't mean to imply the Spanish-only speaking people you encountered were immigrants? Perhaps you thought they were tourists who just happened to sign up with the worst rental car agency ever? But even if they were Spanish-speaking tourists, I don't think referring to them as "subhumanly stupid" would have sounded any better.

[David]

Perhaps you thought they were tourists who just happened to sign up with the worst rental car agency ever?

 

Oh, man. That brought a much needed laugh in the midst of drywall dust and noise today.

[Ken H.]

My sense of the whole matter is this. Any time someone points out a difference b/w people, there is an immediate kneejerk backlash from the self-ordained ministers of compassion and tolerance.

Well if that is a sin - 'preaching' compassion and tolerance, it's one I will gladly plead guilty too.

 

It's what the world needs a lot more of...

[Twisties]

My sense of the whole matter is this. Any time someone points out a difference b/w people, there is an immediate kneejerk backlash from the self-ordained ministers of compassion and tolerance.

Well if that is a sin - 'preaching' compassion and tolerance, it's one I will gladly plead guilty too.

 

It's what the world needs a lot more of...

 

+1

[Vicious_Cycler]

Well sure...as long as its your brand of compassion and tolerance. If you read the post, you'll note I said "difference b/w people". I'm refering to the "ministers" kneejerk reaction to any observation of any difference positive or otherwise.

 

If I observe that I am fat and you are trim, that is a difference. In todays PC culture, the thought police assert there are no differences. And if there were differences, they could not be commmented upon.

 

You want to feel good about preaching? Fine. Just don't pull your shoulder out while patting yourself on the back, its riding weather!

[upflying]

Was the response to Bob's post unmeasured? I don't think so. If anything, I think they were more balanced than the OP. Hence the problem. How measured was it to refer to a group of Spanish-speaking immigrants as "subhumanly stupid"? It drew some sharp criticism here, but had he used the same language in, say, an incident report, he'd be fired for it. So he vented here. I just considered it a Michael Richards Moment. Nothing more.

 

At no time did I refer to the people involved as "Spanish speaking immigrants". Please don't quote something I did not say. Yes they spoke Spanish, but their nationality or immigration status is unknown. Please enlighten me and tell the board what an immigrant looks like?

In your years of law enforcement, how many native-born US citizens have you encountered who spoke only Spanish and no English? I use the term "native-born" because, as an officer of the law I'm sure you're aware, speaking English is a requirement in order to become a naturalized citizen. According to the USCIS, "Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language."

 

So is it still your assertion you didn't mean to imply the Spanish-only speaking people you encountered were immigrants? Perhaps you thought they were tourists who just happened to sign up with the worst rental car agency ever? But even if they were Spanish-speaking tourists, I don't think referring to them as "subhumanly stupid" would have sounded any better.

 

So it is your assertion that people who do not speak English are automatically assumed to be immigrants? Seems like you are being unfair and judgmental to the naturalized citizens who choose to only speak the language of their country of origin. Another example is a child born in the United States to a household that chooses only to speak in a language other than English. Also consider the possibility that a naturalized or US citizen chooses to speak in a language other than English to circumvent and frustrate a lawful investigation by authorities.

Like I asked, you need to expand on your explanation on what an immigrant looks like.

[Jerry Johnston]

Bob, next time do your venting at the tavern. It's a hell of a lot safer. Don't get caught driving afterwards though!