Sacramento County Could Soon Have Life Jacket Law

Sacramento County could soon have a law holding parents accountable for keeping kids safe on public waterways. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
way to go

Sacramento, CA

#1 Jun 3, 2008
i agree 100% , we can replace a lot of thing in are life but are love ones we must keep them safe ....
kap

Elk Grove, CA

#2 Jun 3, 2008
We'll hear all about how this is a inconvenience and how no one should be told what to do, and blah blah blah but its something, thanks to stupid people, that needs to be enforced. Not that it will prevent all from drowning but hopefully it will save more innocent children from the hands of wreckless parents/adults.
Kim

Copperopolis, CA

#3 Jun 3, 2008
I can't wait to hear about the first set of parents that get the big fat fine of $500 and then go directly to jail.:D
kap

Elk Grove, CA

#4 Jun 3, 2008
Kim wrote:
I can't wait to hear about the first set of parents that get the big fat fine of $500 and then go directly to jail.:D
Yep, and hopefully the kids will not have drowned.
WOODY

United States

#5 Jun 3, 2008
It's equitable to the child car seat law, It makes sense and I hope it passes. It will save kid's lives.
darwin

Loomis, CA

#6 Jun 4, 2008
Great another law with a monetary fine ! After all it appears those laws are profitable to enforce .
Pab

United States

#7 Jun 4, 2008
Roger, Roger, the tax lover and knee jerk reaction king. Why don't you see what the age of the oldest person to have drowned in the American River and make that age the upper limit, even if it is 89 years old.
Pab

United States

#8 Jun 4, 2008
Kim wrote:
I can't wait to hear about the first set of parents that get the big fat fine of $500 and then go directly to jail.:D
I agree with the proposed ordinance as long as the age is kept at 12 y.o., just like it is for boats.
Just like seat belts and child restraint seats there are going to be parents that will ignore this law.
I can guarantee you that if they happen to be poor or minorities they won't get penalized or fined, the bleeding hearts will use their tried and true excuse that they have suffered enough. Since Dickinson is sponsoring this law it would not surprise me if something of the sort wasn't written into it.
ShouldBWorking

Sacramento, CA

#9 Jun 4, 2008
At what point does the jacket have to be on? While they are in ankle deep water right next to the shore? Yah, this should be great. I agree with whoever said to keep it 12 or under. I can see now how an officer will be stalking the shore like a speed trap going after 17 year olds in ankle deep water. Revenue baby!
Steve

Sacramento, CA

#10 Jun 4, 2008
It's at a point now that a person is unable to go boating without the police boarding your boat and searching at will. Now we'll have the police patrolling the kids too? Who's paying for all this policing? I'm voting to cut back resources for the police, I don't need to be hasseled every time I go near the water.
DDD

San Francisco, CA

#11 Jun 4, 2008
More government interference is all this is. I agree that we should wear seat belts, use child safety seats and wear life jackets, however, I believe it to be a personal choice, not a government decision. If these precautions are not met, some people die and some don't, it's life.
Sac Girl

Woodland, CA

#12 Jun 4, 2008
Good! It's about time. Maybe people will finally wise up but I doubt it. You can't teach common sense. Year after year we see on the news and read in the paper about someone drowning in the river as soon as the weather warms up. Get a clue Sacramento. How many times do people need to be warned not to swim in the river at the first sign of warm weather because the water is cold from the snow run off and flowing rapidly? I have only been here 12 years and it didn't take long for that to sink into my head. A family member moved here in the Fall and when the warm weather first hit I told her she would start to see on the news all the idiots who drown because thew swarmed to the river too soon. That was right before we saw the 3 drownings within 48 hours all over the news. She couldn't believe it. I feel for the families that lost loved ones but those people were stupid to go in the river and for the minors, their parents were stupid. I would never let my children near that river without a life jacket.
darwin

Loomis, CA

#13 Jun 4, 2008
Steve wrote:
It's at a point now that a person is unable to go boating without the police boarding your boat and searching at will. Now we'll have the police patrolling the kids too? Who's paying for all this policing? I'm voting to cut back resources for the police, I don't need to be hasseled every time I go near the water.
I once got the safety inspection while on my jet ski three times in the same day ! Needless to say I sold my boat and no longer ride the skis due to the hassels
kap

Elk Grove, CA

#14 Jun 4, 2008
Here comes the crying!

“M&M's mom”

Since: Nov 07

Yuba City, Ca

#15 Jun 4, 2008
DDD wrote:
More government interference is all this is. I agree that we should wear seat belts, use child safety seats and wear life jackets, however, I believe it to be a personal choice, not a government decision. If these precautions are not met, some people die and some don't, it's life.
It may be government interference but if it saves one kids life then it is well worth it.
kap

Elk Grove, CA

#16 Jun 4, 2008
All a hassel vs a childs life? How sad if you think that the hassel puts you out more.

“Central Valley Native”

Since: Sep 07

Oakdale, CA

#17 Jun 4, 2008
Now they can stop the minorites from drowning because their parents are never watching them.
haas73

Burbank, CA

#18 Jun 4, 2008
CASE_CORE wrote:
Now they can stop the minorites from drowning because their parents are never watching them.
waaaaaaaaaa!
kap

Elk Grove, CA

#19 Jun 4, 2008
DDD wrote:
More government interference is all this is. I agree that we should wear seat belts, use child safety seats and wear life jackets, however, I believe it to be a personal choice, not a government decision. If these precautions are not met, some people die and some don't, it's life.
Personal choice to wear a life jacket? Maybe for an adult. They can make choices where as a child cant. So you believe we should just depend on natural selection by letting inncoent children drown? Thats an awfully nice way to think. Children are a parents responsibility and children have a right to be taken care of. Now because of IRRESPONSIBLE parents out there, who dont take care of their children near the water, it now has to be a law that has to be enforced. If all parents just GOT IT there wouldnt have be this law.
kap

Elk Grove, CA

#20 Jun 4, 2008
Government would not have to interfere if it werent for parents who dont put life jackets on thier children!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Sacramento Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
White Guys: Would you date a black girl? Elaborate (Nov '07) 17 min who_knows 5,266
Help keep my topic at NUMBER TWO!! (Jun '08) 55 min sams frijole 1,273
Roberta Hewitt 58 min tranwu 5
Skeletal Remains Found Near Isleton (Mar '08) Sat stephen 10
Former sheriff john mcginnis is a hypocrite. (Apr '12) Sat Sam Toliver 25
Review: Dos Rios Homes Housing Prjct (Apr '10) Fri Grace 17
Sac City Fire Department Urging Public to Get W... Fri KD Grayson 1
West Sacramento Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

West Sacramento People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

West Sacramento News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in West Sacramento

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:40 pm PST