Pulled over by State Trooper! LEDs too bright?

[EsTxDr]

My comments only relate to vehicle lighting, as I understand that other vehicle safety issues, i.e., air bags, bumpers, etc., and emissions (talk about over-regulation in the States) may not meet the stricter U.S. requirements. UK lighting requirements, at one time among the best or strictest in the world, depending on your view, included as I recall, "automatic leveling devices" for HID/Xenon headlights, thus reducing the "bright light" or glare problem so prevalent in the U.S. (and part of what this thread is about). The UK also had, among other standards, a "headlamp cleaning system" requirement; rear turn signals that must be amber and must be separate from brake lights; mandatory side "repeater" turn signals that flash/illuminate the entire lane or side where the vehicle wants to merge or turn; more vehicle reflectors; rear fog lights; and allowed for better headlights (such as ADBs). The simple truth in the U.S. is that we overdrive our (weak) headlights because they illuminate so poorly.

Some of these UK requirements were modified when the UK became part of the EU (European Union); have no idea if it will go back to the stricter/better vehicle lighting requirements once the "Brexit" is complete. But certainly these "foreign" vehicle lighting requirements described-above would make American roads safer for both fellow drivers and pedestrians notwithstanding comments here to the contrary. I cannot account for "fool lunatic speeders and passers" nor distracted drivers, which is why I gave up my motorcycle years ago. The U.S. has always been willing to accept a certain number of road casualties every year to avoid what it would really take to reduce the highway carnage (look no further than the weak drunk driver laws in many states, including my home state). Seems to me, based on my experience in both law enforcement and EMS, that some of the small things, like the vehicle lighting upgrades, can help reduce these roadway tragedies. Yet the Feds, even in recent presidential administrations that had a tendency to over-regulate, would not consider them. Look how long it took to even get factory LED headlights in Wranglers. 2016/2017? Which then necessitates some of us to make our own upgrades in that regard, including among other things, LED lightbars or driving lights, amber rear turn signals, mirror or side-mounted turn signals, etc.

And for the record, we in Wisconsin do not accept the concept of warm beer. The Brits can keep that to themselves!

I'm not sure the data on those regulations really proves increased safety. Its one of the reasons we haven't regulated them in the US. The data doesn't show the extra regulation and cost actually saves lives or makes the road safer. I'm just not sure the lights and regulations can really be proven to be causation vs correlation.

But that being said, I dont mind more lighting on cars, but I think we are conflating LED light bars for off road use with on road safety. We certainly shouldn't hold off road lighting needs as paramount for on road use. I think pushing the automotive industry towards safer lighting is a good idea and a worthy cause but asking the federal government to do so without sound data is a step too far for me personally. But I appreciate your response.

Oh and yes, let them keep the warm beer.

Sponsored

 

[crazychile]

...And for the record, we in Wisconsin do not accept the concept of warm beer. The Brits can keep that to themselves!

FYI, I've never had "warm" beer in the UK, nor can any of my Brit friends confirm "warm" is normal serving temp. Stouts, Porters, Pales, etc. tend to have better flavor when "slightly" chilled, so that is usually what you'll find. ICE COLD beer is a US thing, probably brought upon by the fact that our largest producers of beer here in the US brew mostly cheaply made Pilsners, which really need a good chilling to not taste like crap.

 

[Shots]

Ice cold beer is a U.S. thing. Yup, just like FREEDOM. Ha ha. Seriously though, I've heard beer allegedly taste better, chilled, rather than frosty. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of beer (I prefer rum & coke), but when I do drink beer I'll usually drink a red. Which, isn't usually too bad chilled, so there may be something to what you're saying about the cheap domestic brands needing to be icy to not be bitter.

 

[old8tora]

I cannot account for "fool lunatic speeders and passers" nor distracted drivers, which is why I gave up my motorcycle years ago.

Yep , that's the crux of the problem : Humans are terrible drivers , and accidents are caused by terrible driving , night or day , lights or no lights . You hit the nail on the head by giving up your motorcycle .

( European light regulations are irrelevant .)

 

[Muzzle of Bees]

July 4th. Went for a quick drive. Saw a VA State Trooper make a u-turn, didn't think too much of it. Not speeding. Immediately pulls behind me and flashes the lights. I pull over. He says I didn't do anything wrong, but tells me that I have illegal lights. I thought he was talking about my light bar and pod lights. Did I have them on? Nope. He asked if my headlights and fender lights were aftermarket or special addition. I said they were stock. He was surprised at how bright they were, he said that it made him turn his head away when we were passing. That was why he turned around. I told him this would be good for the forum and we laughed, he apologized for the inconvenience. Told him, no problem and be safe.

I guess these lights are that bright! Thought I'd share.

That is a stupid excuse. There are a ton of vehicles that I pass going the opposite direction that make me cringe a little. It is the height of his vehicle and the path your lights are on. When I had an Xterra I would often have someone flash their lights at me and I had stock low beams on. I would flash my hi beams to let them know I was proper. Dont we have real criminals to catch?

 

[DrPerez007]

I'm not sure the data on those regulations really proves increased safety. Its one of the reasons we haven't regulated them in the US. The data doesn't show the extra regulation and cost actually saves lives or makes the road safer. I'm just not sure the lights and regulations can really be proven to be causation vs correlation.

But that being said, I dont mind more lighting on cars, but I think we are conflating LED light bars for off road use with on road safety. We certainly shouldn't hold off road lighting needs as paramount for on road use. I think pushing the automotive industry towards safer lighting is a good idea and a worthy cause but asking the federal government to do so without sound data is a step too far for me personally. But I appreciate your response.

Oh and yes, let them keep the warm beer.

Cannot say I disagree with you and as for the massive LED lightbars on today's Jeeps and trucks, they have no real application to "on road" highway safety. But as to trying to find data tied to support regulations, please keep in mind that there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Exactly as told by the professor who taught the course. Like anything else, one can hunt for data until they are blue in the face or until they find the data that supports a particular position. I was once asked several years ago after giving a safety presentation if drivers are safer or better today than 30 or 40 years ago. My response was, "not particularly." Today, I would say, "absolutely not." Sure, highway deaths are down and miles traveled up, but that is not necessarily tied to better drivers. In fact, it is in spite of the drivers, considering that notable researchers attribute some ninety percent of motor vehicle crashes to human error. Just looking back over the last 30 years at the safety technology and engineering added to vehicles, both "active" and "passive," is pretty impressive; today we have considerably better and improved vehicle safety systems, some regulated, some provided by the manufacturer, and some optional, including, but not limited to, automatic braking and anti-lock braking systems, IR night vision systems, reverse backup sensors and cameras, electronic stability controls, multiple airbags, tire pressure monitoring systems, three-point seat belts, vehicle crush zones including engine drop-down engineering, electronic safety systems, lane departure warnings, blind spot monitoring, and scads of other vehicle safety gadgets. Today's highways are designed and built with safety in mind; we have a very improved, rapid-response EMS system (thank you Squad 51) and, in many jurisdictions, EMS air transport; and our hospital ER staffs are considerably better experienced and trained to handle the victims, keeping more of them alive. Not sure how you tie the data to support any one particular system or improvement here to lives saved.

Notwithstanding these vast safety, response, and medical improvements, in 2016, we still managed to kill 37,461 people in this country on our highways, roads, and streets. Sure, that's over 8,600 fewer deaths than in 1986 and our population is up about 100,000,000 people since then, but we still killed over 37,000 people year before last that included friends, family, neighbors, and just good people. And, unfortunately, we accept that as a country.

So while data is great, and it is nice to have it to support positions, in my business you always want the edge. So anything that adds to that, be it these vehicle safety systems or additional lights that provide drivers better visibility and pedestrians better sight of vehicles, I'll take, with or without the supporting data.

 

[old8tora]

In fact, it is in spite of the drivers, considering that notable researchers attribute some ninety percent of motor vehicle crashes to human error...
So anything ... be it these vehicle safety systems or additional lights that provide drivers better visibility and pedestrians better sight of vehicles, I'll take, with or without the supporting data.

Extra lights ? Just as worse , or even more worse , happens in broad daylight .

European regulations about having side lights and extra lights won't change that . Worse happens in broad daylight .

 

[DrPerez007]

It doesn't matter about any extra lights , because just as worse , or even more worse , happens in broad daylight .

European regulations about having side lights and extra lights won't change that . Worse happens in broad daylight .

There is a reason why countries require DRLs (daytime running lights). Lights do increase the conspicuity of vehicles even during broad daylight. Otherwise, how would emergency vehicles be seen?

 

[old8tora]

There is a reason why countries require DRLs (daytime running lights). Lights do increase the conspicuity of vehicles even during broad daylight. Otherwise, how would emergency vehicles be seen?

You are a good and sincere fellow .

The main reason emergency vehicles are seen is because they are the ONLY ones with the extra lights , flashing in blue and red .

If everyone had a bunch of extra lights , the emergency vehicles would not be distinguishable from the mob of vehicles with extra lights .

 

[Shots]

That is a stupid excuse. There are a ton of vehicles that I pass going the opposite direction that make me cringe a little. It is the height of his vehicle and the path your lights are on. When I had an Xterra I would often have someone flash their lights at me and I had stock low beams on. I would flash my hi beams to let them know I was proper. Dont we have real criminals to catch?

Not to sound like a smart a__, but this is exactly how the "real criminals" are caught. Police need a valid reason to make contact with a driver. This is "probable cause", which in the op's case was bright lights. To be completely overboard on the topic, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (aka RAS) can be also be valid to stop, but that's a whole other conversation so I won't muddy the waters.
Once an officer has established probable cause (PC) to stop a vehicle, they can make that contact with the driver. PC can be something seemingly petty like high beams, a missing front plate, cracked widnshield, etc. even if they don't intend to write a citation for it. Once in contact with the driver, they can dig for the bigger things like stolen cars, drugs, weapons, kidnapping, etc. There are rules controlling that contact and how far they can dig, but this is intended to be a simple explanation.
The point is, if the police don't stop minor offenses, they won't catch the "real criminals".

Here's a little story:
An Officer in Oklahoma performed, what he thought was a "routine traffic stop" of a vehicle with no license plate. The vehicle pulled to the shoulder, and the officer ordered the driver out of his car (standard procedure for his department with that violation). He told the driver why he stopped him and the driver said he had just bought the car. Thinking the car was stolen the officer asked for proof of insurance or bill of sale. The driver could not produce either, and the officer asked for ID. As the driver retrieved his ID, the officer could see a bulge in his coat which he suspected to be a weapon (later learning it was a loaded .45 Glock). The driver was secured and the car searched. The Officer found papers in the car indicating it was from Arkansas, where the driver said he was moving to, from Michigan. The driver was taken to jail for the gun violation, and his car secured at the scene per his request.
So far this seems like a pretty mundane story, of how a guy with a gun was caught because of a license plate violation. Is he a "real criminal"? How about I up the ante? What if I say the driver was a bombing suspect. Even better, a terrorist.
What if I take it a step further and say that is a true story? One you likely know, without knowing the story?
It is a true story. That's how Timothy McVeigh (aka the Oklahoma City Bomber) was caught. A stupid, run of the mill violation for failure to display a license plate. Most would consider it pointless, I mean after all nobody gets hurt from that. But look how it evolved. Any PC, however minor, can lead to "real criminals" being caught.

 

[NavyVet1959]

Not to sound like a smart a__, but this is exactly how the "real criminals" are caught. Police need a valid reason to make contact with a driver. This is "probable cause", which in the op's case was bright lights. To be completely overboard on the topic, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (aka RAS) can be also be valid to stop, but that's a whole other conversation so I won't muddy the waters.
Once an officer has established probable cause (PC) to stop a vehicle, they can make that contact with the driver. PC can be something seemingly petty like high beams, a missing front plate, cracked widnshield, etc. even if they don't intend to write a citation for it. Once in contact with the driver, they can dig for the bigger things like stolen cars, drugs, weapons, kidnapping, etc. There are rules controlling that contact and how far they can dig, but this is intended to be a simple explanation.
The point is, if the police don't stop minor offenses, they won't catch the "real criminals".

Here's a little story:
An Officer in Oklahoma performed, what he thought was a "routine traffic stop" of a vehicle with no license plate. The vehicle pulled to the shoulder, and the officer ordered the driver out of his car (standard procedure for his department with that violation). He told the driver why he stopped him and the driver said he had just bought the car. Thinking the car was stolen the officer asked for proof of insurance or bill of sale. The driver could not produce either, and the officer asked for ID. As the driver retrieved his ID, the officer could see a bulge in his coat which he suspected to be a weapon (later learning it was a loaded .45 Glock). The driver was secured and the car searched. The Officer found papers in the car indicating it was from Arkansas, where the driver said he was moving to, from Michigan. The driver was taken to jail for the gun violation, and his car secured at the scene per his request.
So far this seems like a pretty mundane story, of how a guy with a gun was caught because of a license plate violation. Is he a "real criminal"? How about I up the ante? What if I say the driver was a bombing suspect. Even better, a terrorist.
What if I take it a step further and say that is a true story? One you likely know, without knowing the story?
It is a true story. That's how Timothy McVeigh (aka the Oklahoma City Bomber) was caught. A stupid, run of the mill violation for failure to display a license plate. Most would consider it pointless, I mean after all nobody gets hurt from that. But look how it evolved. Any PC, however minor, can lead to "real criminals" being caught.

And by that same logic, I'm sure you would have no problem with the police setting up checkpoints on every road, asking "Papers, Comrade?" Obviously, you have no problem with the officer in question violating a person's 2nd Amendment rights.



Better a criminal goes free than everyone be treated like a criminal.

And if you are going to call McVeigh a "terrorist", you better classify every FBI and ATF agent that was involved in Waco as terrorists also for their mass murder of the Branch Davidians and those involved in Ruby Ridge. Because, if it had not been for them, McVeigh would not have deemed it necessary to respond.

 

[EsTxDr]

Cannot say I disagree with you and as for the massive LED lightbars on today's Jeeps and trucks, they have no real application to "on road" highway safety. But as to trying to find data tied to support regulations, please keep in mind that there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Exactly as told by the professor who taught the course. Like anything else, one can hunt for data until they are blue in the face or until they find the data that supports a particular position. I was once asked several years ago after giving a safety presentation if drivers are safer or better today than 30 or 40 years ago. My response was, "not particularly." Today, I would say, "absolutely not." Sure, highway deaths are down and miles traveled up, but that is not necessarily tied to better drivers. In fact, it is in spite of the drivers, considering that notable researchers attribute some ninety percent of motor vehicle crashes to human error. Just looking back over the last 30 years at the safety technology and engineering added to vehicles, both "active" and "passive," is pretty impressive; today we have considerably better and improved vehicle safety systems, some regulated, some provided by the manufacturer, and some optional, including, but not limited to, automatic braking and anti-lock braking systems, IR night vision systems, reverse backup sensors and cameras, electronic stability controls, multiple airbags, tire pressure monitoring systems, three-point seat belts, vehicle crush zones including engine drop-down engineering, electronic safety systems, lane departure warnings, blind spot monitoring, and scads of other vehicle safety gadgets. Today's highways are designed and built with safety in mind; we have a very improved, rapid-response EMS system (thank you Squad 51) and, in many jurisdictions, EMS air transport; and our hospital ER staffs are considerably better experienced and trained to handle the victims, keeping more of them alive. Not sure how you tie the data to support any one particular system or improvement here to lives saved.

Notwithstanding these vast safety, response, and medical improvements, in 2016, we still managed to kill 37,461 people in this country on our highways, roads, and streets. Sure, that's over 8,600 fewer deaths than in 1986 and our population is up about 100,000,000 people since then, but we still killed over 37,000 people year before last that included friends, family, neighbors, and just good people. And, unfortunately, we accept that as a country.

So while data is great, and it is nice to have it to support positions, in my business you always want the edge. So anything that adds to that, be it these vehicle safety systems or additional lights that provide drivers better visibility and pedestrians better sight of vehicles, I'll take, with or without the supporting data.

I appreciate the respectful discussion, I find this stuff interesting and glad we can discuss appropriately. I would agree 100% with your line about lies, damn lies, and statistics. Its very true to a point. But we have to muddle through and find data at some point. I trained under one of the leading traffic safety experts who was a coroner as well as trained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in D.C. I can remember always thinking how crazy the stats were in highway safety data, each manufacturer trying to bolster their vehicle and safety system, etc. However, they do collect some great data on safety and accidents. And it can be used although its a difficult process.

I believe the safety industry is moving to more advanced technology than lighting with the sonar/radar and self driving vehicles. I dont see lighting either the lack of causing accidents, or the abundance of avoiding accidents. If that were true we would see vehicular deaths the results of these kinds of accidents but its more become distracted drivers, road rage, and aggressive driving thats causing the problems. Lighting can't overcome poor decision making. I think you hit the nail on the head with the increase in technology and safety, its that which is causing safer roads, not lighting or any real deterrent to accidents themselves anymore. The true advances have been made in safety not avoidance lately; due to the human element.

I agree our EMS system and medicine has advanced and saves many more than it used to, but I'm not talking only about deaths. I'm looking at the data for all collisions and accidents. That isn't swayed by modern medicine. I would disagree that we "accept" the deaths we have on the highways, not at all. But when we decide to intervene to save more, we need to do so carefully. For one, lets make sure we dont swing that number in the wrong direction. I just dont see the number of deaths being caused by lighting issues as much as distracted drivers and human error. We can always try to improve our number of deaths on the roads, but doing so needs to be done effectively and precisely. I dont see anything about Europe's lighting regulations that would really make a change in our deaths.

I think bottom line is that you would have to show that more lighting would give that "edge" you talk about in your last paragraph. Would it really make a difference? I just don't see how it would and the data suggests the deaths are caused by other causes as well.

 

[Shots]

And by that same logic, I'm sure you would have no problem with the police setting up checkpoints on every road, asking "Papers, Comrade?" Obviously, you have no problem with the officer in question violating a person's 2nd Amendment rights. .....

No, it's nothing at all like a checkpoint. A valid reason existed to stop the car. Then the driver was ordered out of the car. Not only was he acting as his department has trained him to do for safety, but the SCOTUS even says the officer doesn't need a specific reason to order someone out of the car (Pennsylvania V Mimms), so there is no violation by the officer there. As for the weapon charge (I assume the alleged 2nd Amendment right violation) in Oklahoma they have concealed carry laws just like the other 50 states. He didn't have a license/permit to carry concealed, so there was a valid violation of law for the officer to arrest him. Again, no violation by the officer. Should concealed carry be legal? That's a whole other discussion, but the fact remains it was illegal at the time of the arrest, therefore it was a valid arrest.

As for McVeigh being a terrorist. Hell yeah he is. He intentionally blew up a building filled with innocent people, INCLUDING A CHILDREN'S DAY CARE, because he had beef with the government. That by the very definition is a terrorist "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Was he right to be pissed about Ruby Ridge, and the Branch Davidian? Maybe, but killing a bunch of innocent people who had nothing to do with it isn't the way to address his discontent. He was a terrorist plain and simple.

I completely agree with this: "Better a criminal goes free than everyone be treated like a criminal."
This mirrors the quote from Benjamin Franklin "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer....", which is a key component of the U.S Constitution. We are all innocent until proven guilty, and shouldn't be treated like criminals until we are proven to be criminals. That said, in the McVeigh example the plate violation was a crime. Then the concealed carry was a crime. Each evolution of that stop was a reaction to an actual offense, not a suspicion. He wasn't stopped because he looked suspicious, or the officer had a gut feeling about something, or just a random check. The officer was observing violations of law and reacted to them. That is far from Checkpoint Charlie (I suspect you're old enough to know what I'm referring to).
Anyway circling back to the point of referencing that turd. A minor traffic violation, which may not even result in a citation, leads to the "real criminals" being arrested. This works on the very premise you mention. Police cant treat everyone like a criminal, and randomly stop or search people. Probable cause must exist to do any of it. A simple traffic stop does not mean a search is legal either (just to be clear). Probable cause to search must also be established. Such as the McVeigh example, probable cause for other violations developed after the initial contact. Those minor traffic offenses are how that initial contact is usually made.

 

[Shots]

I appreciate the respectful discussion, I find this stuff interesting and glad we can discuss appropriately......

Agreed. I've seen too many forums where people take this stuff personal. By civilly discussing and/or debating a topic with someone you will often build a better understanding of their point of view. Much better than being bitter and closed minded, where nobody gets anything from the conversation. You all are great for being civil.

 

[NavyVet1959]

No, it's nothing at all like a checkpoint. A valid reason existed to stop the car. Then the driver was ordered out of the car. Not only was he acting as his department has trained him to do for safety, but the SCOTUS even says the officer doesn't need a specific reason to order someone out of the car (Pennsylvania V Mimms), so there is no violation by the officer there. As for the weapon charge (I assume the alleged 2nd Amendment right violation) in Oklahoma they have concealed carry laws just like the other 50 states. He didn't have a license/permit to carry concealed, so there was a valid violation of law for the officer to arrest him. Again, no violation by the officer. Should concealed carry be legal? That's a whole other discussion, but the fact remains it was illegal at the time of the arrest, therefore it was a valid arrest.

As for McVeigh being a terrorist. Hell yeah he is. He intentionally blew up a building filled with innocent people, INCLUDING A CHILDREN'S DAY CARE, because he had beef with the government. That by the very definition is a terrorist "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Was he right to be pissed about Ruby Ridge, and the Branch Davidian? Maybe, but killing a bunch of innocent people who had nothing to do with it isn't the way to address his discontent. He was a terrorist plain and simple.

I completely agree with this: "Better a criminal goes free than everyone be treated like a criminal."
This mirrors the quote from Benjamin Franklin "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer....", which is a key component of the U.S Constitution. We are all innocent until proven guilty, and shouldn't be treated like criminals until we are proven to be criminals. That said, in the McVeigh example the plate violation was a crime. Then the concealed carry was a crime. Each evolution of that stop was a reaction to an actual offense, not a suspicion. He wasn't stopped because he looked suspicious, or the officer had a gut feeling about something, or just a random check. The officer was observing violations of law and reacted to them. That is far from Checkpoint Charlie (I suspect you're old enough to know what I'm referring to).
Anyway circling back to the point of referencing that turd. A minor traffic violation, which may not even result in a citation, leads to the "real criminals" being arrested. This works on the very premise you mention. Police cant treat everyone like a criminal, and randomly stop or search people. Probable cause must exist to do any of it. A simple traffic stop does not mean a search is legal either (just to be clear). Probable cause to search must also be established. Such as the McVeigh example, probable cause for other violations developed after the initial contact. Those minor traffic offenses are how that initial contact is usually made.

Apparently, you think that it is perfectly acceptable for an officer to enforce a law that is in violation of the Constitutional rights of the citizens, just because some idiotic leftist legislators wrote it up. EVERY law that attempts to restrict the ownership or bearing of firearms is blatantly unconstitutional in that they violate the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED clause of the 2nd Amendment. All you have to do is look at the firearm laws at the time the 2nd Amendment was written to see the intentions of the Founding Fathers with respect to it. But, you also need to understand that the 2nd Amendment is not granting a privilege, it is a *reaffirmation of a natural right* of free men everywhere. A government can no more tell a free man what firearms he can own or where he can carry them than they can tell you which religion your can / cannot / must worship. And it doesn't matter what some leftist stacked legislate-from-the-bench court says on this either. They all too often bring their personal desires into their decisions instead of looking at the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And to combine "probable cause" and the JLs, how about the reported steering issues that some people are reporting when their tires are aired up to the factory pressures? Sounds like they're just *asking for* the officers to pull them over on suspicion of DWI. My SIL was pulled over for suspicion of DWI once. She doesn't even drink. I've followed her before and she does tend to wander a bit in her lane. She does stay in her lane and luckily, she drives a small car, so she has plenty of room to "wander", but I can see how someone might think she was under the influence of something. I would hate to see how she would drive a JL with factory pressure in the tires...

As far as I'm concerned, McVeigh's main problem was choosing a target with unacceptable collateral damages. But, if you look at it objectively, it's not that different than when we bombed places in Iraq, Afghanistan, or ISIS controlled areas where non-combatants were killed because they were near the combatants.

On February 13, 1991, during the first Gulf War, U.S. planes bombed a shelter in the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad, Iraq, killing 408 civilians.

The bombs were laser precision-guided and the shelter was deliberately targeted.

Pentagon and CIA officials argued that the shelter was being used as an alternate command post, an assessment that was supported by a later White House report. That report accused the Saddam Hussein regime of deliberately housing civilians in military installations to act as "human shields."

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/middleeast/us-collateral-damage-history/index.html

It you look at it objectively and not emotionally, that's not really that different than the OK City incident from McVeigh's point of view. To him, the enemy was the US government agencies that had orchestrated the murders in Waco and Ruby Ridge and as such, every government employee was a legitimate target. The daycare was just collateral damages and could be compared to the above example of Sadam using human shields around his installations to deter attack.

I'm not trying to defend what McVeigh did. I'm just pointing out that to say that he was a terrorist tries to over-simplify his actions and makes it so that we don't learn from the incident. The most important thing that the government should learn is that if cannot get away with doing things to people because sooner or later, *someone* might stand up to them.

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." -- John Basil Barnhill, but often attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Sponsored