Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cigarette butts
Collapse
X
-
I hate that so many smokers are such lazy *******s that they just throw their butts on the ground. I want to see the charge changed to attempted arson whether they do it on the road or while about to walk into a store/building.Last edited by Gryff; 07-13-2009, 12:28 AM.My friends and family disavow all knowledge of my existence, let alone my opinions.Comment
-
Dave Attell did it on insomniac. He was with New Orleans cops and tossed one on the ground in front of them. They just looked at him like, are you for Fing real. I loved it.
I have only known two smokers that pack their butts out after work or a hike.Comment
-
Have we quite exhausted this thread yet? What more can possibly said about it? This teat has been milked dry already. Stick a fork in it, it's done.Last edited by Fire in the Hole; 07-13-2009, 9:16 PM.Comment
-
You know what I hate? That society treats smokers like the walking plague and have removed all the ashtrays because they are ugly and smell. What the hell am I supposed to do with my cigarettes, throw them in the trash? Now that would be attempted arson.Comment
-
-
-
This past week alone, I've seen 3 trash can fires started in the garbage can in front of my work... 2 of them I can only suspect from cigarette butts... And one confirmed because I watched the ***hat toss his lit cig into the bin. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to toss a lit cigarette into a trash can!?

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
You can trust me. I'm aarecrooman...aircroomen...airecrewmen... I fly on planes.Comment
-
I've seen so many LEO's on the phone it's not even funny. Does the CA law say they're exempt from the hands free law?OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified ArmorerComment
-
[QUOTE]California Vehicle Code 23123
Effective July 1, 2008
23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone....I've cut the remainder as it is not germane to your particular question. The below section will answer your question locosway:
(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
In case you are wondering what Section 165 is, I have provided that also:
locosway, that should definitively answer your question. The question itself, without your opinionated statement, was sufficient, knock it off.(b) Any publicly owned vehicle operated by the following persons, agencies, or organizations:
(1) Any federal, state, or local agency, department, or district employing peace officers as that term is defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Part 2 of Title 3 of the Penal Code, for use by those officers in the performance of their duties.
(2) Any forestry or fire department of any public agency or fire department organized as provided in the Health and Safety Code.
(c) Any vehicle owned by the state, or any bridge and highway district, and equipped and used either for fighting fires, or towing or servicing other vehicles, caring for injured persons, or repairing damaged lighting or electrical equipment.
(d) Any state-owned vehicle used in responding to emergency fire, rescue or communications calls and operated either by the Office of Emergency Services or by any public agency or industrial fire department to which the Office of Emergency Services has assigned the vehicle.
(e) Any vehicle owned or operated by any department or agency of the United States government when the vehicle is used in responding to emergency fire, ambulance, or lifesaving calls or is actively engaged in law enforcement work.
(f) Any vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol.
I've seen so many LEO's on the phone it's not even funny.Comment
-
I'll leave all opinions at the door then for this forum.
Another question because I'm curious on this topic. Why are those persons listed in the law exempt?OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified ArmorerComment
-
I'll be honest, I have no idea. It may have been lobbied for by the agencies involved and/or the legislators themselves decided to do that. Again, that is pure speculation on my part.
I would surmise you'd have to contact the actual bill initiator and I don't know how successful you would be with that.Comment
Calguns.net Statistics
Collapse
Topics: 1,861,577
Posts: 25,082,726
Members: 355,415
Active Members: 5,304
Welcome to our newest member, scentedtrunk.
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 5239 users online. 157 members and 5082 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 8:20 PM on 09-21-2024.

Comment