|
Be glad you're only getting warnings. You keep breaking the law and he keeps pulling you over, that is not harassment. Get more rest so you're not falling asleep when you drive home and learn to set the cruise control.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
I'm an Aussie living in the US. When I went home to Melbourne last year, I had an eventful (ugh!) evening: I kept one bloke from beating another to death. I'll be giving evidence soon at a committal hearing via videolink. I'm pressing charges (assault and making threats to kill) and most likely the prosecution's main witness - I bore the brunt of the guy's rage. Well, aside from the poor bastard he attacked. The hearing is at the Melbourne Magistrate's Court. What would the committal hearing be like? Should I expect to be grilled or will this just be the defence probing for information? It's funny: I didn't even think about pressing charges when I gave a statement. I didn't find out until later that charges were being pressed on my behalf. I never really thought about how that worked before - is it usually so automatic?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
I have a question about a fire in an apartment I rent. The stovetop recently caught on fire (Wednesday the 7th). The fire was put out with a fire extinguisher when the fire department arrived. My girlfriend who I live in delt with this, she was in the shower and came out to find the stove on fire. My concerns are obviously the mess that has ensued and the clean up regarding it. The firemen said the stove would be fine, assuming we could get it clean. I work as a chef and have quite a bit of knowledge on cleaning kitchen equipment. The oven was restored to it's original condition when I got home to work that night. I talked to the landlord the next morning and he had already purchased a brand new stove and was not interested in the restoration of the old one. I have the gas company coming out as soon as they can (tomorrow) to inspect the old stove and give me evidence that it is perfectly operatable. I feel as though if the stove has been restored to it's previous condition as well as a certified technician telling me that there is nothing wrong with it, then I should not be responsible for a brand new one (Or at the very very very least, not responsible for the entire $600) The new stove arrives Tuesday, I am on limited time with the old one. Problem number 2 arrises in the actual cleaning of the apartment. A powder based fire extinquisher was used, which caused my entire unit to be covered in a fine film. The fire department said it was non-toxic and that a household vacuum would clean it up. At 8am the following morning (Thursday) there was a cleaning crew of 4 people at my apartment to clean that the landlord had scheduled. They arrived in seperate domestic cars, supplied with a mop from walmart, household cleaner, and rags. It wasn't until 10am when the landlord arrived that he explained to me their rate (After he had already booked them) and that myself and my girlfriend (The two legal tenants) are not capable of cleaning up the mess. On the Wednesday of the fire, my girlfriend said she could clean up the mess, and he wouldn't allow it. The thursday he arrived, I explained we would clean the bedroom, as it is furthest from the kitchen and personal. He would not allow it, because the powder is so invasive we wouldn't be able to clean everything. The cleaning crew was hired to wipe down the walls and ceiling. The walls and ceiling. Nothing else. He said we have to vacuum. We have to mop. We have to clean all of our furniture. What amounted to wiping off the walls and ceiling with rags and a mop, is costing us $60/hr for almost 6 hours of labor. A percentage of that labor was spent with the cleaners chatting on their cellphones. It frustrates me that I was not allowed to clean because I was told I wasn't capable of doing a good job, yet the cleaners who he chose to hire were not equipped with anything I wouldn't be able to get at walmart. They were really expensive and did nearly nothing to clean the apartment. (I called and got a quote from a legitimate company this morning for $120-$200 total). I am being forced to pay for both of these expenses in full and I don't feel like this is a fair situation. The fire was our fault, however if the landlord hadn't been near the building at the time he never would have found out and it would have been cleaned and finished by today, back to the condition it was in before the fire took place. Instead I have over $1000 in bills and I am now cleaning up the mess of the cleaning crew that was intended to do a better job than I ever could. I don't feel like I was ever given a fair chance to solve the problem myself and had the carpet ripped out from under me and am now paying for something I wouldn't have bought in the first place. I live in Northern California. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Grazing Occultation posted:I'm an Aussie living in the US. When I went home to Melbourne last year, I had an eventful (ugh!) evening: I kept one bloke from beating another to death. I'll be giving evidence soon at a committal hearing via videolink. At a committal hearing? I have no idea why they'd even need you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
I got an rear end chewing today on base by someone who isn't a cop for not having backup lights on my vehicle. It's now being turned into a huge deal. There is no law in the Texas Transportation Code requiring backup lights. This was confirmed, after some research, by the DPS. http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/tn/007.00.000547.00.html The cops on base used the following to say that it falls under federal law: OnBasePolice posted:
FMVSS 108 states: FMVSS108 posted:S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for original and says TABLEONE posted:Backup lamp ....................... 1 white.................... Now, a backup lamp is required per that table - but the table falls under the scope of "This standard specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." What I'm getting from that is that a backup lamp is only required for OEM or replacement lamps, correct? If so, what constitutes a replacement lamp? The vehicle in question is using trailer lights for everything in the back, including running lights, turn signals etc, as required by Texas. In order to fall under the FMVSS for a backup lamp, wouldn't I be required to have a replacement backup lamp to begin with? edit:I realize that not having backup lamps is stupid, a bad idea, etc etc. The bed of my truck was crushed and I wasn't able to put new lights where the old ones went, so the trailer lights went on - I looked up the texas transportation code, saw that it said "no backup lamps" and didn't put them on. I think the question really is, what constitutes a "replacement lamp"? e2:removed, irrelevant. invision fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Apr 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 00:43
|
|
|
Just to get this straight, you're using trailer lights in place of the original brake/rear lights in your truck that were lost due to damage?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
beejay posted:Just to get this straight, you're using trailer lights in place of the original brake/rear lights in your truck that were lost due to damage? Yes. There are two stop lights/running lights, and two turn signals, for a total of 4 lighting assemblies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
invision posted:Yes. There are two stop lights/running lights, and two turn signals, for a total of 4 lighting assemblies. Are you going to listen to what people say this time? Also, whether he's write or wrong you will probably have to hire a lawyer or pay the fine. Enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Are you going to listen to what people say this time? A)What? B)There's no fine or anything involved in this, therefore there is no reason for me to hire a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
invision posted:A)What? A)I tried to help you last time you came in here. You ignored me. B)Then why is this an issue? Put the lights on your truck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:A)I tried to help you last time you came in here. You ignored me. 1)Negative, I didn't ignore you. I DID take your advice with a grain of salt considering you are still in law school, although it does make you more qualified than anyone else. It turned out that I didn't need your advice in the end, though I do appreciate it. 2)Because it's going to cost me a LOT of money in OEM parts to be able to hook up a back-up light since the original re-wiring job is pretty shady to begin with. 3)I enjoy lists also.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
invision posted:Table I of the FMVSS...says... invision posted:What I'm getting from that is that a backup lamp is only required for OEM or replacement lamps, correct? invision posted:If so, what constitutes a replacement lamp? invision posted:In order to fall under the FMVSS for a backup lamp, wouldn't I be required to have a replacement backup lamp to begin with? invision posted:I think the question really is, what constitutes a "replacement lamp"? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dautomotive&field-keywords=backup+lamp Pick one and put it on your vehicle. Or, Just get a white light. Put it on the back of your truck. Point it backwards. Hook it back up to the switch on the transmission. That martinet that somehow has even more spare time than you is not going to pull out a tape measure, photometer and the CFR to make sure you did it exactly right. invision posted:I DID take your advice with a grain of salt considering you are still in law school, although it does make you more qualified than anyone else. 2. Former Judge Advocate 3. Among other things, did Base regulations, including traffic regs Fix the bloody light. Somebody's unit needs some mortar pits dug. edit: invision, It took a couple minutes, but your avatar finally clicked. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3256209&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post371274583 If you're doing more stuff like this in your spare time, carry on. joat mon fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Apr 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
I apologize in advance for the stupidity of this question, but my wife and I are insanely curious. Watching Prison break, and a woman just spoke with her escapee husband and agreed to meet him. The FBI tapped it, and threatened her with aiding and abetting a fugitive and the loss of her kid. Does it work that way in real life? I know the law can't force your spouse to testify against you, does that apply to reporting them if you're meeting with them? We were just curious is it was real law or TV law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 07:20
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:I apologize in advance for the stupidity of this question, but my wife and I are insanely curious. Aiding a fugitive is still illegal regardless of whether or not your married to them. The reporting is irrelevant if she's agreed to meet with and help him. Incidentally, did you know it's a crime to lie to a federal law enforcement officer? E: It's probably still TV law
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 07:28
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Aiding a fugitive is still illegal regardless of whether or not your married to them. The reporting is irrelevant if she's agreed to meet with and help him. Pretty sure that in Wisconsin there is a 'spouse/family' exemption for aiding a fugitive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Pretty sure that in Wisconsin there is a 'spouse/family' exemption for aiding a fugitive. Um, maybe (Wisconsin is weird as we've established per our discussions from last semester), but pretty sure this hypo would fall under federal jurisdiction
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
Anyone with any real estate experience have any input on my problem? Meeting with the landlord tomorrow after I talk with the gas company. As of now my plan has two outcomes: Gas guy says my stove is ok. I write a statement to the landlord saying why I am not paying for the stove and cleaning. Copy of gas guy's reciept/write off. And go from there. Gas guy says my stove is broken. I write a statement saying I am paying in full, the cost of the new stove and installation. I am not paying for the cleaning as it was done without my consent. Anything?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 09:44
|
|
|
Outcome three: Gas guy says your stove is in Wisconsin, you are sentenced to death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 10:25
|
|
|
Toxx posted:Anyone with any real estate experience have any input on my problem? Here's one thing: why don't you explain the situation leading up to your glorious plans a & b? Right now all I've got is that you're going to be meeting with the gas guy who will put his head in your
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 10:32
|
|
|
He posted the entire story on this very page, duder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 11:05
|
|
|
Javid posted:He posted the entire story on this very page, duder. Alright, here's the next obvious one: Hey, Toxx, What does your lease say about damage to the premises?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 11:29
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:At a committal hearing? I have no idea why they'd even need you. I've been summonsed. It sounds like I'll probably get there, wait around for a while, then be told that I'm not needed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Alright, here's the next obvious one: Lease says we are responsible for damage to premises. If gas company says stove is not broken - I am not buying a new stove as I have not damaged the old one. I will of course pay for anything I damage. And the gas man is a free service of my gas company. I'm having him come out in order to tell me whether or not the stove is safe. Stove = safe, I have done no damage. My landlord does not agree. This is my main problem, as I am fairly certain the stove is fine. Toxx fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Apr 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
Toxx posted:Lease says we are responsible for damage to premises. If gas company says stove is not broken - I am not buying a new stove as I have not damaged the old one. I will of course pay for anything I damage. And the gas man is a free service of my gas company. I'm having him come out in order to tell me whether or not the stove is safe. Stove = safe, I have done no damage. My landlord does not agree. This is my main problem, as I am fairly certain the stove is fine. I'm not sure I'd go that far. Still I think you'd only be liable for the replacement value of the stove in the apartment. It really depends on where you live. You should contact the tenants union in your town. Also, what does your lease say about getting quotes for repairs to premises? Most good leases will have a provision for shopping around for quotes that are mutually agreeable to both landlord and tenant in case the premises need repairs at the end of the lease.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I'm not sure I'd go that far. Still I think you'd only be liable for the replacement value of the stove in the apartment. It really depends on where you live. You should contact the tenants union in your town. Lease has nothing of the sort, just that I'm responsible. The electricity in the stove is hosed, it's tripping my breaker. The gas man said it needs to get repaired. Guess I'm buying a new stove.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Be glad you're only getting warnings. You keep breaking the law and he keeps pulling you over, that is not harassment. Yeah, he's a real outlaw doing that five over; totally deserves being harassed week after week. Probably should be maced and beaten too. gently caress that scumbag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 08:54
|
|
|
wormil posted:Yeah, he's a real outlaw doing that five over; totally deserves being harassed week after week. Probably should be maced and beaten too. gently caress that scumbag. It isn't harassment if he's constantly breaking the law and constantly getting warned with no substantive consequence. For 99% of the population the quickest and easiest way to get the police to ignore you is to stop breaking the law. He's already admitted to being so tired he ended up swerving over the road and to speeding. He's also admitted that he's somehow managed to commit a violation every time. The reasonable response is not that the officer is being a dick, the reasonable response is perhaps that the OP should stop trying to drive home at 3am when he's clearly not in a fit state to drive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 09:40
|
|
|
Edit: Sup, 2019
kayel fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jul 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 13:27
|
|
|
Unless she was pulled over in a county where court appearance is mandatory. Where I live, you can pay a fine by mail. One county over, you must appear in court for all traffic citations or they WILL issue a warrant for your arrest. Call the clerk of court in the county she was given the ticket and ask them what procedure is. They are nice, they know drat near everything, and they will help you with this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It isn't harassment if he's constantly breaking the law and constantly getting warned with no substantive consequence. For 99% of the population the quickest and easiest way to get the police to ignore you is to stop breaking the law. I haven't broken the law every time. I have been pulled over now for a 7th time last night and I was with people and had one of them record it. I was only breaking the law twice out of the 7 times. Each time he has pulled me over he has made me take a DUI test and each time I have passed. Last night he pulled me over for what he says was my license plate light wasn't working but when I got out of the car it was on and I explained to him it's on and working. He told me that he couldn't see it on and then gave me the DUI test again. I explained to him that my friend was recording this and he said he didn't give a gently caress. He also wrote me another yellow warning and refused to give me his badge # but I have his name and vehicle number. I have taken extra precaution when driving on this turnpike now. I drink a redbull before I leave the poker game and make sure I am wide awake. I set my cruise at 63 miles an hour which is 2 miles under the speed limit. I make sure both hands are on the wheel and my seatbelt is on and every Saturday night when I pull into the booth to get my toll ticket between 2:30 and 3:00 am he is there waiting for me and follows me for at least 2 or 3 miles then pulls me over. I beleive I am getting harassed for some reason and I don't know why. I am not going to make a complaint yet but I will keep recording every instance and have all those warnings saved and I am speaking with my lawyer Monday regarding this. When I spoke to him on the phone he basically told me if the police want to pull you over they will always find a minor infraction to pull you over for even if its bullshit. I have never been in trouble with the law I have only ever had 1 speeding ticket and it was 10 years ago. There is no reason for this guy to be doing this to me. I know I am in the right here and plan on fighting this I just need to put up with his bullshit a little more so I have concrete proof what he is doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
jase1 posted:I haven't broken the law every time. I have been pulled over now for a 7th time last night and I was with people and had one of them record it. I was only breaking the law twice out of the 7 times. Each time he has pulled me over he has made me take a DUI test and each time I have passed. Last night he pulled me over for what he says was my license plate light wasn't working but when I got out of the car it was on and I explained to him it's on and working. He told me that he couldn't see it on and then gave me the DUI test again. I explained to him that my friend was recording this and he said he didn't give a gently caress. He also wrote me another yellow warning and refused to give me his badge # but I have his name and vehicle number. Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
Why not just have the poker game at your house?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
jase1 posted:I haven't broken the law every time. You should probably post this in the cop thread if you haven't already, more likely to get useful responses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
jase1 posted:I have been pulled over now for a 7th time last night and I was with people and had one of them record it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:You should bake your cop friend some cookies for the next time he pulls you over. He sounds lonely. Or brownies. I'd bet he's torn as to whether to eat them or have them tested
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
I have a question about the legality of kicking someone out of a shared apartment. I just found out that during the summer semester, a friend of one of my roommates' whom I really dislike will be here constantly, to the point where she will be here for basically everything short of class and sleeping. Now recently we've been civil around each other, but there were times in the past where I almost threw her out of the apartment because she caused several conflicts. My question is, do I have the authority, since my name is on the lease, to kick her out/have her removed if she causes a conflict with me? I'm usually very tolerant and do not want to ever resort to this, but I don't feel I should be coming home to her every day after classes if we're not getting along at all. I honestly don't care about getting my roommates mad at me for it. I just want to know whether I'll be finding someone to stay with or whether I'll be able to get her rear end kicked out of my apartment so I can live here in peace. Just throwing it in there in case it's on a state or town basis, I'm in Blacksburg, VA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
zabraba posted:I have a question about the legality of kicking someone out of a shared apartment. I just found out that during the summer semester, a friend of one of my roommates' whom I really dislike will be here constantly, to the point where she will be here for basically everything short of class and sleeping. Now recently we've been civil around each other, but there were times in the past where I almost threw her out of the apartment because she caused several conflicts. Do you guys have separate leases or what? I suspect that your best option is just going to be to prevent her from taking occupancy if you can
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Do you guys have separate leases or what? I suspect that your best option is just going to be to prevent her from taking occupancy if you can Yeah, there are 4 separate leases for the rooms and we all share a common room and a kitchen. This girl won't be subleasing, as we're not permitted to do that through the leasing office anyway. She'll just be in this apartment constantly except for during classes and sleeping, where she'll go to her own apartment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
I'd have a chat with your landlord about the situation, they might care and be able to do something about it. If she's sleeping elsewhere, though, it might not be a big deal to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Javid posted:I'd have a chat with your landlord about the situation, they might care and be able to do something about it. If she's sleeping elsewhere, though, it might not be a big deal to them. My question is more can I have her removed because it's my place and not hers. I don't know anything about the law for this (hence asking here), but I'd imagine if Person A really dislikes Person B enough, Person A would be able to get Person B removed from Person A's apartment. Sort of like a trespassing type deal, but I guess not quite the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 21:33
|
|