State of NC suddenly VERY STRICT on vehicle window tint...

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:11 pm

I can't take you seriously now after the riding dirty comment

.

Brian Marks · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:12 pm

Interesting points, Steven. I'm just pissed off that my 28% tint choice was fine for years and now I have to go spend $350+ to gain a few % to avoid the DMV anal probe! :sing:

Matt McGrain · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:18 pm

Steven Carter wrote:

heh heh...gotta keep it funny. Can't take these conversations too seriously--no need to get bent out of shape :mrgreen:

Hallelujah! ...and I'm not even the relgious type, unless you count Sunday morning coursewalks praying that I don't hack it up on the course.

Steve for Prez! :thumbsup:

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:41 pm

Brian Marks wrote:

Interesting points, Steven. I'm just pissed off that my 28% tint choice was fine for years and now I have to go spend $350+ to gain a few % to avoid the DMV anal probe! :sing:

That is very true, and justifiably upsetting. Made me think twice about adding tint to my WRX...I know other states allow darker tint, so anyone who moves here from those places would be out some serious coin to bring their car into compliance. I'm all for federalism and separate states and all, but geez.....

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:41 pm

Matt McGrain wrote:

Steve Westerfield for Prez! :thumbsup:

FTFY

Matt McGrain · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:49 pm

Steven Carter wrote:

Matt McGrain wrote:

Steve Westerfield for Prez! :thumbsup:

FTFY

à la Grover Cleveland style? :lol:

Not sure that's ever happened in THSCC, although I know you're kidding.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:08 pm

Matt McGrain wrote:

We REALLY need to focus on the 'pandemic' of overutilization of tech-gagetry behind the wheel but I feel like as a society we're not because we feel we're so reliant on it. On the way back from a bike ride a few weeks ago on 40 near the RBC center in rush hour traffic, I approached a reeeeeally slow moving, beautiful late model X5 holding up traffic and come to find out there's a reason why. When I glanced over, the driver had a fully illuminated iPad held atop the steering wheel and was tapping away!!! I don't even like talking on the cell phone behind the wheel and almost always let it go to voicemail.

These people just need to be killed w/o taking out other innocents. They really are too stupid to be allowed free reign [rein?] to drive on public roads. Maybe for a first offense we just cut off 3 digits on each hand.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Brian Marks wrote:

Interesting points, Steven. I'm just pissed off that my 28% tint choice was fine for years and now I have to go spend $350+ to gain a few % to avoid the DMV anal probe! :sing:

That is the actual bad point. Its the inconsistency - not the fact that the tint was or was not legit. If it was too much tint, it should have been too much tint when it was first applied. We can complain about it only being 2% or whatever over but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:34 am

Steven Carter wrote:

...using vehicle safety/window tint laws allows police to intercept people who may be in the process of criminal behavior including drug/gun possession. A quick Google search of "illegal tint crime" showed a substantial number of links to news items where a car was stopped for illegal tint, and subsequently during an inventory search uncovered drug paraphernalia, weapons etc (truly "riding dirty"). Illegal tint = Probable cause? youbetcha.

What if cops stop every car after seeing someone wearing baggy pants get into it? Baggy pants = Probable cause? BTW, some call this 'profiling', which some say is bad/illegal.

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:55 am

Vincent Keene wrote:

Steven Carter wrote:

...using vehicle safety/window tint laws allows police to intercept people who may be in the process of criminal behavior including drug/gun possession. A quick Google search of "illegal tint crime" showed a substantial number of links to news items where a car was stopped for illegal tint, and subsequently during an inventory search uncovered drug paraphernalia, weapons etc (truly "riding dirty"). Illegal tint = Probable cause? youbetcha.

What if cops stop every car after seeing someone wearing baggy pants get into it? Baggy pants = Probable cause? BTW, some call this 'profiling', which some say is bad/illegal.

What if? VK, you need to get with the times! They've been after baggy pants since at least 2007! :lol:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20817735/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/crackdown/

Of course, cities are having trouble getting to the bottom of the issue. The crackdown has had some problems passing without additional effort, butt seems to gain traction. Profiling? Yeah, maybe profiling in bad fashion...

JamesShort · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:02 am

Honestly, car nuts are talking about 'profiling' likes it's something new? :mrgreen:

What about cars with wide tires, loud exhaust, SCCA stickers, lower ride height, yellow (Koni/Bilstein) shocks etc etc etc

.

Andrew Jonell · **Joined:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:43 pm **Posts:** 1350

Steven Carter wrote:

Brian Marks wrote:

As an aside, I understand that a tint infraction IS now considered a misdemeanor crime. YIKES. They're smoking crack at the DMV.

I'll take the other side of that argument...not that I actually disagree with Brian, but simply because it's fun. One can call it the "Giluiani Capone" defense. BTW, if NC DMV is on crack, it better be on someone else's tax dollars, that's for sure! :lol:

)

How did Giuliani cut the crime rate in NYC so dramatically? Part of the answer (as always, the complete answer is more complicated) is he started paying attention to "nuisance" laws--public urination, drunk in public, jaywalking etc. Those "crimes" made a fertile ground for more significant illegal behavior, and by enforcing those, he was able to get the police presence up in neighborhoods. This, in turn, led police to be more observant for other criminal-like behavior, reduced the incentive for criminal activity in NYC and resulted in NYC's crime rate dramatically dropping from 1993-97. Similarly, DMV and NC police may be using these (and similar laws) in a similar fashion. Are they? dunno. But paying attention to "tip of the iceberg" crimes can dampen the enthusiasm for bigger criminal activity. Like 9% tint. Or driving Crosstours.

Everyone knows that Capone was caught not for gangster-related behavior but on bland crimes like tax evasion. Not sexy, but each count had teeth. Similarly, using vehicle safety/window tint laws allows police to intercept people who may be in the process of criminal behavior including drug/gun possession. A quick Google search of "illegal tint crime" showed a substantial number of links to news items where a car was stopped for illegal tint, and subsequently during an inventory search uncovered drug paraphernalia, weapons etc (truly "riding dirty"). Illegal tint = Probable cause? youbetcha.

Is this what NC is up to? Beats me. But I think it's helpful to understand both perspectives on the issue.

Rowe v. Wade had more to do with the crime decrease in NYC in the 90s than being tough on crime.

Where's the emoticon of a can of worms?

steve remchak · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:42 am

Andrew Jonell wrote:

Steven Carter wrote:

Brian Marks wrote:

As an aside, I understand that a tint infraction IS now considered a misdemeanor crime. YIKES. They're smoking crack at the DMV.

I'll take the other side of that argument...not that I actually disagree with Brian, but simply because it's fun. One can call it the "Giluiani Capone" defense. BTW, if NC DMV is on crack, it better be on someone else's tax dollars, that's for sure! :lol:

)

How did Giuliani cut the crime rate in NYC so dramatically? Part of the answer (as always, the complete answer is more complicated) is he started paying attention to "nuisance" laws--public urination, drunk in public, jaywalking etc. Those "crimes" made a fertile ground for more significant illegal behavior, and by enforcing those, he was able to get the police presence up in neighborhoods. This, in turn, led police to be more observant for other criminal-like behavior, reduced the incentive for criminal activity in NYC and resulted in NYC's crime rate dramatically dropping from 1993-97. Similarly, DMV and NC police may be using these (and similar laws) in a similar fashion. Are they? dunno. But paying attention to "tip of the iceberg" crimes can dampen the enthusiasm for bigger criminal activity. Like 9% tint. Or driving Crosstours.

Everyone knows that Capone was caught not for gangster-related behavior but on bland crimes like tax evasion. Not sexy, but each count had teeth. Similarly, using vehicle safety/window tint laws allows police to intercept people who may be in the process of criminal behavior including drug/gun possession. A quick Google search of "illegal tint crime" showed a substantial number of links to news items where a car was stopped for illegal tint, and subsequently during an inventory search uncovered drug paraphernalia, weapons etc (truly "riding dirty"). Illegal tint = Probable cause? youbetcha.

Is this what NC is up to? Beats me. But I think it's helpful to understand both perspectives on the issue.

Rowe v. Wade had more to do with the crime decrease in NYC in the 90s than being tough on crime.

Where's the emoticon of a can of worms?

doubtful. no babies means less cha-ching in the check at the first of the month. that would be counter-productive behavior.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:30 pm

Steven Carter wrote:

Vincent Keene wrote:

Steven Carter wrote:

..

What if cops stop every car after seeing someone wearing baggy pants get into it? Baggy pants = Probable cause? BTW, some call this 'profiling', which some say is bad/illegal.

What if? VK, you need to get with the times! They've been after baggy pants since at least 2007! :lol:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20817735/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/crackdown/

Of course, cities are having trouble getting to the bottom of the issue. The crackdown has had some problems passing without additional effort, butt seems to gain traction. Profiling? Yeah, maybe profiling in bad fashion...

In the baggy pant case getting to the bottom of the issue should not be a problem.

Brian Marks · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:34 pm

RobLupella wrote:

In the baggy pant case getting to the bottom of the issue should not be a problem.

Oh, that's just low....

THSCC Forums

State of NC suddenly VERY STRICT on vehicle window tint...

Who is online