German police stops illegal rallye - 63 cars confiscated

[hansvonaxion]

Most of them didn't. And I'm sure they weren't happy about it. Especially since rallies are now illegal in Germany, home of Porsche/M-cars/AMGs and the world famous autobahns. There is nothing wrong with having a cross country rally, such as this. Which is why people still showed up. They're entitled to the right to assemble.

Now you're just being silly. The ones that didn't show up didn't have their cars locked up. The ones that did turned their cars over to the rally organisers to have them parked in the warehouse, the organisers were planning to go ahead with the rally, the drivers planning to take part in it. The cars weren't even technically confiscated, they property of the organisers was locked and the cars happened to be inside. Their right to assemble (which is not always automatic, depending on your intentions) was still intact.

No, it isn't valid to generalize in both directions, just one. Innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't go "in the other direction".

I don't see what the big deal is. People were planning on taking part in an illegal rally and their cars were locked in the organisers warehouse briefly. I think there are more deserving causes in the world for this outrage.

 

[TC]

Now you're just being silly. The ones that didn't show up didn't have their cars locked up. The ones that did turned their cars over to the rally organisers to have them parked in the warehouse, the organisers were planning to go ahead with the rally, the drivers planning to take part in it. The cars weren't even technically confiscated, they property of the organisers was locked and the cars happened to be inside. Their right to assemble (which is not always automatic, depending on your intentions) was still intact.

So the cars weren't confiscated? And they were parked on someone else's property?

So what right do the police have to refuse someone access to their property? The rally may have been declared illegal, but the rally never actually happened. All those cars never had a chance to participate in the rally, the rally never started, so therefore they did nothing wrong. Yet. If they broke the law, in any way shape or form, then why were no charges filed? Why was no one arrested?

Because no laws were broken, that's why.

I still see this as nothing more then a political stunt. Anyone with half a brain could have told you one of those drivers was going to get someone killed years ago. The only reason they're doing this now, is because of the isolated incident on the Gumball Rally last year. Where one of the idiot drivers drove his 911 in oncoming traffic at insane speeds and drove head-on into another car. Those are the people that should be locked up, not all the other people who did nothing wrong.

I mean seriously, how would you feel if the police showed up at your house and put heavy locks on your garage and refused you access to your car, on the basis that you're probably going to speed or tailgate or something, the moment you get out on the roads?

 

[GraemeH]

I don't see what the big deal is. People were planning on taking part in an illegal rally and their cars were locked in the organisers warehouse briefly. I think there are more deserving causes in the world for this outrage.

You're right, that part is fine. It's the fact it was made illegal that I can't agree with. I'm sure you'd agree that if it was somehow possible to know that all cars would drive safely and under the speed limit, the rally shouldn't be illegal. So we then arrive at the fact that a legal activity (driving in convoy on public roads) has been made illegal because of crimes that the police think someone might be commit in the future, because someone unconnected in a different rally broke laws.

That's what I can't come to accept.

I would be perfectly happy if the police set up speed traps and busted everyone that went 1mph over the limit for the duration of the rally's trip through their country. It's this pre-emptive, speculative justification for declaring a legal activity illegal I'm uneasy with.

 

[MacGuffin]

Well, based on your opinion, the police should not be allowed to confiscate guns or knifes from visitors or fan groups of a sports event (football, soccer, ice-hockey, whatever...), because they haven't done anything illegal yet and may have just brought their knifes to clean their fingernails.

And they might or might not go somewhere else and stab someone anyway - so what's the use of those controls and of taking away their property? Poor fellows...

That sounds ridiculous? Well, it's the same thing, only a different setting.

Thinking about it: The next soccer world cup is in South Africa. I'm sure they can do without any preventive security measures there, after all, it's such a safe and peaceful country. Surely it's enough when there are just a few policeman there, in case something really happens...

Do you begin to understand the ludicrousness of saying, that the police must always wait until something happened? The police also has a function to protect the public by acting preventive to defuse potential dangerous situations.

And I'm quite sure that's the same in all countries all over the world.

The only reason why you argue about it in this case, is because as a car enthusiast you feel sorry for those locked up Ferraris and Porsches. You want them free on the road, roaming their natural environment.

They are just things, man... things without a soul and without a heart. Only dead matter. Same as a gun or a knife.

 

[GraemeH]

Well, based on your opinion, the police should not be allowed to confiscate guns or knifes from visitors or fan groups of a sports event (football, soccer, ice-hockey, whatever...), because they haven't done anything illegal yet and may have just brought their knifes to clean their fingernails.

And they might or might not go somewhere else and stab someone anyway - so what's the use of those controls and of taking away their property? Poor fellows...

That sounds ridiculous? Well, it's the same thing, only a different setting.

Thinking about it: The next soccer world cup is in South Africa. I'm sure they can do without any preventive security measures there, after all, it's such a safe and peaceful country. Surely it's enough when there are just a few policeman there, in case something really happens...

Do you begin to understand the ludicrousness of saying, that the police must always wait until something happened? The police also has a function to protect the public by acting preventive to defuse potential dangerous situations.

And I'm quite sure that's the same in all countries all over the world.

The only reason why you argue about it in this case, is because as a car enthusiast you feel sorry for those locked up Ferraris and Porsches. You want them free on the road, roaming their natural environment.

They are just things, man... things without a soul and without a heart. Only dead matter. Same as a gun or a knife.

Read a previous response I made in this thread. It isn't the same as guns and knives or bombs. Cars are legal items that can be used anywhere there are roads to engage in legal activities. They can be enjoyed by enthusiasts within the limits of the law on any public roads. The fact you can use them for illegal activities, well you could use a fish-finger for illegal activities, you could use anything for illegal activities if you really tried. Meanwhile, you can only use guns/knives/bombs in very specific places for specific activities in a legal way. So the gun/knife/bomb analogy falls down there.

I don't feel sorry for the cars, most of those cars aren't to my taste at all. I don't care about them. I'm thinking of myself being in the position of a driver. I love road tripping, long distance driving across several countries, I do it well within the limits of the law. So imagine I had the money and was on this rally, to enjoy cruising across the continent with other car enthusiasts, and suddenly I'm being treated like a criminal.

Also think of the practicality of outlawing these rallies. What constitutes a rally? It's legal for one car to drive itself. Two? If i drove with four friends in their cars in convoy, is that a rally? Should that be illegal? What's the magic number where it becomes illegal? Is it the price of the cars that matter? You could have a rally with 150 classic cars or 150 bangers but not 150 modern cars? Is that 'right'? You can break traffic laws in any car. Who decides which types of cars to discriminate against and which not to, and why should they have the right to decide who has the right to take part in this legal activity and who doesn't, based on the type of car they have?

 

[MacGuffin]

Read a previous response I made in this thread. It isn't the same as guns and knives or bombs. Cars are legal items that can be used anywhere there are roads to engage in legal activities. They can be enjoyed by enthusiasts within the limits of the law on any public roads. The fact you can use them for illegal activities, well you could use a fish-finger for illegal activities, you could use anything for illegal activities if you really tried. Meanwhile, you can only use guns/knives/bombs in very specific places for specific activities in a legal way. So the gun/knife/bomb analogy falls down there.

If you had spent some time on a German Autobahn, then you'd know that cars can be used as weapons and actually often are, when there is no general speed limit.

It doesn't mean the driver is a thug or criminal or a murderer but many drivers, especially younger ones, succumb to the illusion of power they feel in a fast car - they consider themselves superior and claim the right of way, just because their engines are more powerful. So slower cars are considered inferior, therefore must be getting out of the way. And if they do not go out of the way quickly enough, they are threatened by blinking, flashing or even tailgating.

And this is not happening at 60 or 70 miles per hour - oh no. I was once even tailgated when I was doing 140!

You mustn't compare it to your own experiences or the traffic situation in your own country. You have to see it in the context of a traffic environment, where there is no general speed limit and where you still have to maintain law and order on the road.

This is reflected in our laws. For example the current jurisdiction here does not consider tailgating a violation of traffic rules, which would only result in a fine. Instead it is considered the criminal act of intimidation, which can lead to hard time or at least to a criminal record.

Maybe knowing this helps a bit in the understanding.

 

[TC]

Well, based on your opinion, the police should not be allowed to confiscate guns or knifes from visitors or fan groups of a sports event (football, soccer, ice-hockey, whatever...), because they haven't done anything illegal yet and may have just brought their knifes to clean their fingernails.

A more appropriate analogy would be the German government banning football games entirely, on the basis that all football fans are uncivilized neanderthal savages who're unable to watch a simple game of sports without breaking into a violent riot and attempting to kill each other with sticks and pipes. Rallies are now illegal in Germany.

For the "greater good", right?

I think you're missing the point that speed doesn't automatically equal death. We have freeways here in America that rival your autobahns in terms of size and quality, but if you're caught doing 140 MPH here, you'll be charged with felony speeding and reckless endangerment. So basically, by your own omission, by American standards, you are a dangerous criminal for admitting that you did 140 MPH on a public highway. Yet, you didn't get anyone killed, did you?

The Police waiting until an actual traffic law is broken (ie speeding/tailgating/laning/not signaling/etc) is not the same as waiting until someone pulls the trigger on a gun or slashes someone with a knife. The police pull you over for speeding, because of what might accidentally happen if something unfortunate occurs. If you're doing 65 MPH then you're not doing anything wrong or putting anyones life in danger, but if you're doing 66 MPH you can be pulled over and fined for speeding. It's not even close to being the same thing as weapon control. Unless you think a gun with 6 bullets is a big threat, but a gun with 5 bullets is nothing to be concerned about.

 

[MacGuffin]

A more appropriate analogy would be the German government banning football games entirely, on the basis that all football fans are uncivilized neanderthal savages who're unable to watch a simple game of sports without breaking into a violent riot and attempting to kill each other with sticks and pipes.

Well, are they not?

 

[un-dee]

A more appropriate analogy would be the German government banning football games entirely, on the basis that all football fans are uncivilized neanderthal savages who're unable to watch a simple game of sports without breaking into a violent riot and attempting to kill each other with sticks and pipes. Rallies are now illegal in Germany.

Bullshit?

Ever heard about separation of powers? What a court decides has nothing to do with a government decision.

And rallies are not illegal in germany, its just that this event was considered pretty much coextensive with other events that had been stopped before because they lead to illegal races.
Just gather some information before you post or don't post at all.

 

[Interrobang]

Ever heard about separation of powers? What a court decides has nothing to do with a government decision.

To be absolutley correct and fair, I guess we have to mention that (like in every other country) courts over here don?t decide stuff without being called upon by someone. In cases as this one, it is very likley to have been done by the "inner" department, wich is of course part of the executive but headed by a secretary, a politician who is also a part of the legislative and the goverment.

So apart from the courts rulings being independent from politics, politicians and with that "the goverment" are mostly responsible for bringing up stuff like this (don?t know about this specific one, but it is very likley I suppose) to the courts and therefore do have some responsibility.

 

[TC]

Bullshit?

Ever heard about separation of powers? What a court decides has nothing to do with a government decision.

In the US, the courts are the judiciary branch of our government. Besides, it was just an analogy.

And rallies are not illegal in germany, its just that this event was considered pretty much coextensive with other events that had been stopped before because they lead to illegal races.
Just gather some information before you post or don't post at all.

I apologize. I was going off the original post, but I must have read it wrong. I thought the court ruled against rallies of this kind, not just this individual rally.

 

[MacGuffin]

So this all has been a big misunderstanding or what?

 

[Eye-Q]

If it was then it was a hilarious one - 5 pages of arguing for nothing...

 

[un-dee]

Alright then, lets all have a beer

 

[TC]

So this all has been a big misunderstanding or what?

No. It's still a dangerous course of action. For the police to take action against you for doing nothing wrong, on the basis that you might possibly do something wrong, is bullshit.

Setting these sorts of legal precedences always bother me. Sacrificing freedom for a vague sense of security.

 

[Hercules286]

No. It's still a dangerous course of action. For the police to take action against you for doing nothing wrong, on the basis that you might possibly do something wrong, is bullshit.

I don't know about German law, but here you're required to ask permission from the local authorities if you're gonna be doing some big gathering. They're free to say no.

Setting these sorts of legal precedences always bother me. Sacrificing freedom for a vague sense of security.

Most european law systems aren't based on precedents...

 

[TC]

I don't know about German law, but here you're required to ask permission from the local authorities if you're gonna be doing some big gathering. They're free to say no.

Same here. But here, the police are only allowed to deal out punishment when a crime is committed. Sure, the police can act on conspiracy to commit a crime, but I'm pretty sure that's only the case for serious offenses, not failing to obtain a permit. Besides, if any laws were committed, arrests would have been made, correct?

Most european law systems aren't based on precedents...

I'd like the think so, but I know how the EU works sometimes. They'll follow suit, if they think it's in their best interest. I've heard Jeremy Clarkson say as much when bitching about things as trivial as traffic laws and speed cameras. The Gumball fatalities from last year have given these rallies a bad image and a judge can garner a lot of public sympathy by taking a strong stance against them.

 

[MacGuffin]

The Gumball fatalities from last year have given these rallies a bad image and a judge can garner a lot of public sympathy by taking a strong stance against them.

In case you don't know: Judges do not need to be elected here, therefore they don't give a damn about their public image. As long as their judgement is covered by the laws, they are complete and utterly independent.

I guess what you are saying, is: Terribly sorry for the victims but no need to stop and reconsider, because personal freedom for rich, immature sports car drivers is more important, than the health and safety of the common man on the road.

Let me tell you a secret: There is no such thing as personal freedom. It's an illusion. You are only free to act and move within the laws and regulations - and they differ from country to country.

As long as it is a free and democratic country, no one from outside has the right to judge about puny details in laws and regulations, no matter how ridiculous they seem.

When I was in the United States, we were instructed to not carry any alcohol visible in the car, because it was forbidden to do so - it didn't matter if you just did some shopping for a party.

Also it was forbidden to drink alcohol in the public. "Public" in that case meant any area that was not surrounded by a fence. So for example our hotel swimming pool was surrounded by a fence. Inside drinking alcohol was legal, outside the fence it was forbidden

So here in Germany the police can decide to step in and lock up cars as a preventive measure, when they suspect that those cars will very likely be used for illegal road racing.

It might be a slight invasion into personal freedom of the car's owners because they had to take a bus or train to finish their trip.

And yes, we'll never know now if there would have been a road race or not, if there would have been an accident with people injured or killed or not.

But with each and every accident or disaster that happened, there will always be someone saying afterwards: "If that would have not been done" or "If that would have been done", the disaster or the accident would have never happened.

If someone had killed Adolf Hitler in 1925, he would have been treated like a common murderer, no matter how much he would have insisted on just having prevented the greatest disaster humanity has ever seen.

Life is a series of ifs and afterwards we are always smarter than before.

 

[TC]

Then just ban cars and get it over with. Ban the sale and consumption of alcohol while you're at it, kills far more people then any "rich immature prick" in a Ferrari.

 

[MacGuffin]

Well, in case you haven't noticed: We are the only industrial nation on Earth without a general speed limit

We are also very liberal on consuming alcohol in the open (as long as you don't drive afterwards). There are 4000 different brands of beer available here, btw.

And while I'm at it, we're also very tolerant and relaxed, when it comes to nudity and politicians here will be elected, even when they're gay and don't believe in God.

So by all means - your outbreak misses the right target, I fear...