|
Kalman posted:And people who can go to Findlaw. Or Google Scholar. Or the library.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
I'm not sure how someone could jump from "It's drat easy to do legal research for completely free" to "LOL asking people to self-represent" Honestly it's a rather impressive leap
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:I'm not sure how someone could jump from "It's drat easy to do legal research for completely free" to "LOL asking people to self-represent" Faster than a button mashing post report. Able to leap tall logic points in a single bound! Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird. It's a plane. It's.... SUPERPOHL. However, pro tip for the curious, most major courthouses and lawschools at public universities have public law libraries with staff librarians who will help you research. My school had a resident kid diddler who was at the same computer every day trying to figure out how his sov cit status invalidated his sex offender status. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:However, pro tip for the curious, most major courthouses and lawschools at public universities have public law libraries with staff librarians who will help you research. god bless sov cits e: for reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM Syenite fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:god bless sov cits Edit: that poo poo is funny as hell. Pohl fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm not a sovereign civ, Jesus. No one said you were. Read. Please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No one said you were. Read. Please. Yeah, that his post didn't imply that at all. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm not a sovereign civ, Jesus. ????? Where did I say/imply that? Was responding to the bit about the kiddy diddler. Honestly confused as to how you come to these conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Hold on why would a sovereign citizen use a public library. Doesn't applying for a library card with the name on your berth certificate create joinder with the irs' legal fiction version of you and give the government power over the real you? Classic mistake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Yeah, that his post didn't imply that at all. No. It didn't. But I'm starting to wonder if the lady doth protest too much... Quick pohl, I'm going to say a phrase and you say the first thing that pops into your head: "gold fringe"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. It didn't. But I'm starting to wonder if the lady doth protest too much... Trump!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hold on why would a sovereign citizen use a public library. Doesn't applying for a library card with the name on your berth certificate create joinder with the irs' legal fiction version of you and give the government power over the real you? CAN YOU PROVE THAT I'M DRIVING??
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:????? You can't talk about a person then shift gears to talk about something else and then declare that they have nothing to do with one another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hold on why would a sovereign citizen use a public library. Doesn't applying for a library card with the name on your berth certificate create joinder with the irs' legal fiction version of you and give the government power over the real you? Heh, you think this is my library card? The name is spelled out in capital letters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Pohl posted:You can't talk about a person then shift gears to talk about something else and then declare that they have nothing to do with one another. Actually you can. It's an internet forum. In fact I even just edited the post to make the context completely clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:Actually you can. It's an internet forum. In fact I even just edited the post to make the context completely clear. All I see is that I said that poo poo was funny, so we are good. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:SUPERPOHL. And really? What the hell is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Every case I am aware of allows the defense to cross examine the officer on his level of training/experience. Error rate. Frequency of calibration. Etc. And even lets the judge toss the case because the breathalyzer company refuses to discuss its product in court!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
I was of the impression that the breathalyser isn't used in court, its just what the police use at the road side to arrest you on suspicion of drink driving and then its the blood test they take at the station that is used as the proof. Is that incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I was of the impression that the breathalyser isn't used in court, its just what the police use at the road side to arrest you on suspicion of drink driving and then its the blood test they take at the station that is used as the proof. Is that incorrect? Almost every municipality makes you go back to the courthouse and blow in the big machine. Does anyone rely on roadside breathalyzers anymore? In a legal sense?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I was of the impression that the breathalyser isn't used in court, its just what the police use at the road side to arrest you on suspicion of drink driving and then its the blood test they take at the station that is used as the proof. Is that incorrect? Yeah. The field breathalyzer is presumptive, not conclusive. The big one back at the station is better. A blood draw is best. You probably will not win a DUI on a field breathalyzer alone. However, refusal to take a FST or breathalyzer is admissible as consciousness of guilt evidence and can be grounds for license revocation in some states. Not a fifth amendment violation because it's non testimonial. (Unless you are in Oregon...but gently caress Oregon)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I was of the impression that the breathalyser isn't used in court, its just what the police use at the road side to arrest you on suspicion of drink driving and then its the blood test they take at the station that is used as the proof. Is that incorrect? Even blood tests have limited value, as the process assumes that alcohol metabolizes at the exact same rate for every person on the planet. Which is doesn't. The entire system is flawed at the core and doesn't mesh with stated policy goals anyway. Reckless, dangerous driving should be the focus - but its so much easier to be a smug moralist about alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Even blood tests have limited value, as the process assumes that alcohol metabolizes at the exact same rate for every person on the planet. Which is doesn't. Come on, it sets a standard that is reasonable. That is all that matters. I'm not going to get pissed off if I blow a high number even though I think I'm sober. I don't drive much because I know I'm probably legally drunk. This is not a surprise to me. I may feel ok but that is another issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I was of the impression that the breathalyser isn't used in court, its just what the police use at the road side to arrest you on suspicion of drink driving and then its the blood test they take at the station that is used as the proof. Is that incorrect? For breath testing, there's the PBT (what most people think of when they think "breathalyzer"), which is the road-side test that's done along with the field sobriety tests. The results generally aren't admissible in court because it's not very accurate, but it's helpful to detect the presence of the alcohol and help create PC for an arrest. Then there's the Intoxilyzer 8000, which is the current model of a series of evidentiary breath testing machines that a lot of places use. Those results are admissible in court and the defense gets to challenge them citing partition ratios, hematocrits, or whatever the hot new trend is. Some places will use the PBT but skip the Intox and rely on blood testing, like you mentioned. Some use breath only. Some use both, and their cases very rarely go to trial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Trying to make Westlaw free is indeed nuts- but I do think that Westlaw/Lexis should be effectively removed from the market by a free, government-run database of equivalent or near equivalent quality. There's slow progress in that direction, which is why the legal database companies released Nexus and Next.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trying to make Westlaw free is indeed nuts- but I do think that Westlaw/Lexis should be effectively removed from the market by a free, government-run database of equivalent or near equivalent quality. There's slow progress in that direction, which is why the legal database companies released Nexus and Next. The best thing to do would be to make internet searches on criminal history come up with nothing. Have background checks for kid diddling if you are a babysitter, but criminal background checks are horeshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Pohl posted:The best thing to do would be to make internet searches on criminal history come up with nothing. A. Criminal background checks and legal research are not the same thing. B. background checks serve a valid purpose. I'm not going to hire I housekeeper I know is a thief. Or a limo driver with a DUI record.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Come on, it sets a standard that is reasonable. No, what matters is the policy goal, which is ostensibly about highway safety. A bright-line BAC that gets constantly lowered by neo-prohibitionists is without value for this purpose because it does correspond to the stated purpose, re: dangerous and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. A driver may be impaired but have a BAC below that line, or have a BAC above it and not be impaired, and in either case the law fails. (Lets not even get into the negative consequences associated with these laws, like penalizing those responsible enough to not drive while impaired with the same penalties as if they did.) Ideally the police would be arresting those that drive in a reckless and dangerous manner for - you guessed it, actually presenting a danger to society. This involves actual work, however, is not as lucrative, and doesn't allow for Stasi-esque checkpoints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:No, what matters is the policy goal, which is ostensibly about highway safety. A bright-line BAC that gets constantly lowered by neo-prohibitionists is without value for this purpose because it does correspond to the stated purpose, re: dangerous and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. A driver may be impaired but have a BAC below that line, or have a BAC above it and not be impaired, and in either case the law fails. (Lets not even get into the negative consequences associated with these laws, like penalizing those responsible enough to not drive while impaired with the same penalties as if they did.) Pick a better hill to die on. Seriously. I'm an alcoholic and I don't loving drive, unless I have a plan. This isn't a big goddamn burden on mankind. Pohl fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:No, what matters is the policy goal, which is ostensibly about highway safety. A bright-line BAC that gets constantly lowered by neo-prohibitionists is without value for this purpose because it does correspond to the stated purpose, re: dangerous and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. A driver may be impaired but have a BAC below that line, or have a BAC above it and not be impaired, and in either case the law fails. (Lets not even get into the negative consequences associated with these laws, like penalizing those responsible enough to not drive while impaired with the same penalties as if they did.) Are you trying to defend drink driving with the argument that 'a tiny percentage of people are fine so driving drunk is fine and its only horrible people that want alcohol banned that have a problem with it?'
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Are you trying to defend drink driving with the argument that 'a tiny percentage of people are fine so driving drunk is fine and its only horrible people that want alcohol banned that have a problem with it?' I could probably drive better at .25 than you could at .08 but I wouldn't say that was smart. His argument is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Are you trying to defend drink driving with the argument that 'a tiny percentage of people are fine so driving drunk is fine and its only horrible people that want alcohol banned that have a problem with it?' I'm trying to say that driving dangerously should be a crime, dude. Maybe also that if a citizen recognizes that they are impaired before driving and sleeps it off in the backseat of their car instead of driving maybe they shouldn't get their lives ruined by a DUI conviction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Are you trying to defend drink driving with the argument that 'a tiny percentage of people are fine so driving drunk is fine and its only horrible people that want alcohol banned that have a problem with it?' I think he does. Is it as dumb as I think or am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
The pretense that it is an any respect useful or viable for a private citizen to go to a law library and conduct research through case book on an actual case with real world consequences is as ludicrous as pretending children are adults. To the extent Gideon was a one in a million individual who produced a tenable appellate legal pleading through self-research, I estimate there are approximately 300 people in the country right now who can do that, assuming they have months to years in which to learn by doing what is handed on a platter by Lexis and Westlaw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
mastervj posted:I think he does. You didn't miss anything. He actually believes this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I'm trying to say that driving dangerously should be a crime, dude. I would argue that anyone under the influence of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle is driving dangerously. Someone being charged for sleeping in the backseat of their car is another issue entirely that should be addressed in how the law is applied by officers, not that it is a bad law. I would also suggest that the number of people wrongly prosecuted for sleeping off a hard night of drinking in their car is a minuscule amount and utterly inconsequential when taken in the context of removing drink drivers from the roads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Pohl posted:You didn't miss anything. He actually believes this. I think the goverment should be against explosions, not explosives. Because, you know what? Sometimes explosives are not exploding. I mean, I can detonate 200 grams of TNT in my back yard no problemo. It's the explosions that are the problem. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:A. Criminal background checks and legal research are not the same thing. Then you have relegated a bunch of society into being nothing more than thieves because they can't get a job. Also, who the gently caress hires a housekeeper? Seriously, Rhesus, what are these people supposed to do if they have changed their life around?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Oh you guys.  Driving is good and fun! You can go to a party!  Driving in a dangerous and reckless way is bad. The car might hit someone, or another car!  If someone is driving in a reckless and dangerous way, the police should stop them from driving so that everyone is safe.  It doesn't matter if they are driving dangerously because they are chemically impaired, putting on a toupee, exhausted, or just plain dumb. It is dangerous!  So the police should be vigilant and watch the drivers on the road so they can see who is driving dangerously and stop them.  Police should not set up roadblocks and checkpoints, and they shouldn't arrest people they think might drive dangerously - only those that are. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Drunk driving is illegal not because it necessarily makes your driving poor, but because it's knowing conduct which compromises your ability to drive. The quality of driving may be relevant at sentencing, as with the level of intoxication. But the fact of intoxication, while engaged in high-risk, high-consequence behavior, is why it is illegal. There is no clever way around that rationale, and no amount of Denzel Washington in Flight-style drunken competence can lead you around the essential fact that you have made a potentially dangerous situation riskier than it has any right to be through knowing conduct. People have a (usually willfully) hard time understanding this sometimes. Bad driving is not the offense. Driving under conditions that are unreasonably risky to yourself and those around you is the crime. I agree it is questionable how the bright line for intoxication keeps dropping. But that is only the threshold point of intoxication society has decided it will accept, beyond which it is presumed you were under the influence to an unacceptable degree. That goalpost moves and has moved and may continue to move, certainly, if and as society grows increasingly intolerant of DWI-related risk. But the underlying course of conduct is recklessness, and that hasn't ever changed. Recklessness is the decision to engage in a course of conduct that implicates public safety, knowing that you are doing so in an unacceptably risky or dangerous way or under unacceptably risky or dangerous conditions. This is why driving 90 in a residential school zone is a criminal offense -- at that speed, you are presumed to know you are driving unsafely relative to local conditions. Drunk driving follows the exact same logic. There's a discussion to be had about the mounting severity of the penalties for first and second offense drunk driving, and about the extent to which local contractors have created a pocket industry for themselves making people pay for interlock machines and (often laughably substandard) substance abuse counseling. And there's a discussion to be had about the utility and resource allocation behind having cops hunting for DWI's more so than for the incidents of bad driving themselves. But I don't understand why it would be difficult to wrap one's head around the central conceit of DWI prohibition. I have met the occasional heavy alcoholic who can stand and talk clearly at .3 BAC. Those people are scary and sad, and I would not use them as a case study in the safety of high risk alcohol use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:48
|
|