Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’ve seen them too. It’s like they’re asking the police to pull them over. Most likely they don’t want cops to see their faces. During a recent freeze I was amazed at the number of people with their hoods up and were using their hands to keep the winds from blowing off their hoods instead of using the hood drawstrings.
My first instinct was to respond to this post with 'You've spent far too much time in Detroit, man', given your username, but I see you live in Lafayette, Lousiana, so...maybe you've spent too much time in crime-ridden sections of New Orleans or something. Where I'm from, lots of people wear hoodies--it's solidly blue-collar garb. I'm not blue-collar myself but I'm from a blue-collar town and kinda-sorta dress accordingly.
The Trayvon Martin incident. Then young suburban males from started acting all gangsta.
Yeah, you couldn't be more wrong. If pressed to identify the time when hoodies became mainstream, I'd pinpoint the time when I began college, around 2003-2004 or so. Steve & Barry's was a chain that sold college hoodies for $7.99, and they became quite popular during this time. I'd walk around UB and, without lie, on any given day the majority of the students might be wearing a hoodie. Prior to this time, hoodies were in fact mostly associated with 'the criminal element', but this is an outmoded stereotype, and one whose survival to the present day is somewhat astounding to me.
TexasLawyer2000 is being intentionally pedantic. It goes with the profession. Sadly, he/she probably thinks he/she is being terribly clever.
Yeah, well, victimofGM informed TexasLawyer2000 that the thread was about driving with your hoodie on while also recounting some riveting tale of people walking to a smoking area while wearing hoodies, so I'm not sure how he's qualified to tell people to stay on topic.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
And from constitutional law:
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
What nonsense? Your response has nothing to do with what he said.
What are you talking about? Is this some sort of new internet debating tactic? Unless you have zero reading comprehension, my post is directly related to Tiffer E38s . The Snopes article even cited Thompson vs Smith, which Tiffer E38 also cited. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're confused and responded to the wrong post.
My response directly addressed Tiffer 38's post in which he/she cited a bunch babble that has been proven wrong many times. I then provided a link to Snope's which also article directly addresses Tiffer E38's claim. Not sure which part you're confused about.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiffer E38 "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
And from constitutional law:
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
Though I agree with the sentiment about hoodies.
What you've posted has been widely discredited. The only folks who believe this nonsense are members of fringe wacko groups like Sovereign Citizens. These groups have put your theory to the test dozens of times and lose in court every single time.
It is the human equivalent of horse blinders, and anyone caught doing it should have their car crushed into a cube.
Wait what? Last I checked hoodies don’t cover your eyes. Maybe instead of worrying about what other drivers are wearing you should worry about the road.
Wait what? Last I checked hoodies don’t cover your eyes. Maybe instead of worrying about what other drivers are wearing you should worry about the road.
Google "peripheral vision". You're welcome in advance.
Frankly, its pretty scary that folks like you are allowed to drive. It sounds like you stare straight ahead and aren't concerned about anything at the edges of your field of vision. Maybe YOU should be concerned about the safety of your fellow motorists. Unbelievable.
Wait what? Last I checked hoodies don’t cover your eyes. Maybe instead of worrying about what other drivers are wearing you should worry about the road.
I suspect "horse blinders" aren't what you think they are.
Location: Removing a snake out of the neighbor's washing machine
3,095 posts, read 2,040,022 times
Reputation: 2305
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinE
The Trayvon Martin incident. Then young suburban males from started acting all gangsta.
I was in agreement with the sentiment behind that, as well as behind the kneeling at NFL games. But it sure made it hard to find a sweat top without a hoodie! lol
Google "peripheral vision". You're welcome in advance.
Frankly, its pretty scary that folks like you are allowed to drive. It sounds like you stare straight ahead and aren't concerned about anything at the edges of your field of vision. Maybe YOU should be concerned about the safety of your fellow motorists. Unbelievable.
I know what it is. I also know I’m more than able to wear a hoodie and not impact my peripheral vision. I can have it covering my ears without blocking my vision, at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
