|
Radbot posted:Seems appropriate you'd be comparing hairstyling knowledge to law knowledge necessary to keep you out of prison.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Haven't you heard the term "That haircut is criminal?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Seems appropriate you'd be comparing hairstyling knowledge to law knowledge necessary to keep you out of prison. W.....what? How do you get that from what that poster has said. They're responding to someone who doesn't seem to like that lawyers understand the law better than laypeople, and using examples of many other specialst trained jobs that contain people that know how to do things normal people don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
I've defended three asset cases, all cars. In one, client let child drive car. Child was subject to injunction prohibiting any nighttime driving other than to/from work. Child was committing a crime in a parking lot, not on the route to work/home, at 2am. DA attempts to seize car. I presented evidence that client had instructed child to use car only to go to/from work and that his illegal activities, which occurred really close to the time his shift ended, weren't foreseeable under Texas's "good faith owner" defense. Second one involved a guy selling meth out of his car. He pled guilty to everything and confirmed the officer's report. In the asset forfeiture, I put on evidence that the car was something he would need in my rural town to work post jail (sentence was rehab essentially). The car was taken. That was probably the correct legal decision. Third one involved a guy who lent the car to a couple who used it to commit armed robbery. I again attempted the "good faith owner's" defense. In discovery, I received copies of text messages that showed my client knew what was going to happen and he was supposed to be the alibi through am overly complicated scheme that failed. I withdrew after I realized he had lied to me. I'm guessing the car was taken and he probably went to jail. I feel really good about the first one, cause my client was older and needed the car to get to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Second one involved a guy selling meth out of his car. He pled guilty to everything and confirmed the officer's report. In the asset forfeiture, I put on evidence that the car was something he would need in my rural town to work post jail (sentence was rehab essentially). The car was taken. That was probably the correct legal decision. Legally correct or morally correct?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
I don't get what benefit there is for society in the second case. On one hand I get something like you shouldn't be able to keep the money you make from selling illegal drugs, but if you sell drugs from your house you shouldn't lose your house (unless you bought it with the drug money or something). Why does it make sense to take the guy's car just because he was selling drugs out of it? Losing your car seems like it would be harder to even go to rehab if you're in a rural area without a car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Legally correct or morally correct? Legally. That's what the law allows the state to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Legally. That's what the law allows the state to do. Would you argue that it was the right thing to do as punishment? Personally, I wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:W.....what? Right. My point is that cutting your own hair is ill advised, as is pretending that laypeople are qualified to read case law. Also that the stakes in criminal law and hairdressing are very, very slightly different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Right. My point is that cutting your own hair is ill advised, as is pretending that laypeople are qualified to read case law. Anybody (who is literate) can read case law. You don't have to be qualified to read something. Literally nobody has said Random Goon Sir should try to represent themselves or try to apply the case law in any other official capacity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
I cut my own hair all the time. If I mess up I don't end up in jail. The problem with this whole conversation is, occasional dumb post aside, it's not so much about acting as your own lawyer as that when cops suddenly show up at your door knowing your rights can be the difference between them walking off and hauling you in. Just the ability to cover your own rear end and make sure you don't accidentally incriminate yourself in some fashion. "Hey officer, before I talk to you give me a couple hours to go hit that law library to see exactly what I should and can do in this situation." Doesn't work super well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Garrand posted:I cut my own hair all the time. If I mess up I don't end up in jail. The problem with this whole conversation is, occasional dumb post aside, it's not so much about acting as your own lawyer as that when cops suddenly show up at your door knowing your rights can be the difference between them walking off and hauling you in. Just the ability to cover your own rear end and make sure you don't accidentally incriminate yourself in some fashion. Then people should ask that instead of making weird strawmen attacks against people who actually know how poo poo works. e: for content, try not to act like a sovcit towards a LEO, this is my advice AM I BEING DETAINED?????? CAN YOU PROVE THAT I WAS DRIVING????? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLY9EbDmzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M48dt67xknE Syenite fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:Then people should ask that instead of making weird strawmen attacks against people who actually know how poo poo works. The latter is ridiculous and the "AM I DETAINED OFFICER" thing is indeed something sovereign citizens do, but knowing the difference between being detained and arrested and your legal rights in varying situations is incredibly important. If an officer says that you're not being detained, you have full legal right to walk away and avoid whatever interaction the officer is attempting to commence. If you are detained, it's not the same as being arrested in terms of what officers can search without consent. And you need reasonable suspicion of a crime to actually make an arrest in the first place. All three things are different and unique, and you'll get pretty far if you can get a concrete answer from the officer (especially if you record the interaction for posterity) so you can figure out what kind of trouble you're in. For instance, trying to walk away while detained is a really good way to suddenly get your teeth scattered on the asphalt. Hope the officer actually told you that you're detained before trying to force compliance. Just because a sovereign citizen or freeman of the land does something doesn't mean that thing is inherently a bad idea. Unless that thing is "Claim that you're not legally a person in front of a judge." That is inherently a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The latter is ridiculous and the "AM I DETAINED OFFICER" thing is indeed something sovereign citizens do, but knowing the difference between being detained and arrested and your legal rights in varying situations is incredibly important. If an officer says that you're not being detained, you have full legal right to walk away and avoid whatever interaction the officer is attempting to commence. If you are detained, it's not the same as being arrested in terms of what officers can search without consent. And you need reasonable suspicion of a crime to actually make an arrest in the first place. All three things are different and unique, and you'll get pretty far if you can get a concrete answer from the officer (especially if you record the interaction for posterity) so you can figure out what kind of trouble you're in. For instance, trying to walk away while detained is a really good way to suddenly get your teeth scattered on the asphalt. Hope the officer actually told you that you're detained before trying to force compliance. Yeah, knowing if you're being detained can be marginally helpful, recording can be somewhat more helpful, and being civil is most helpful. 90% of police are just regular people. If you try to walk away from a cop who's talking to you/has told you to stay put then that's not smart. Also try to be white. Syenite fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:If you try to walk away from a cop who's talking to you/has told you to stay put then that's not smart. If you're detained or under arrest, then it's not smart. If an officer says that you're not either of those, however, you have no legal obligation to talk to them or be around them and can legally walk away. Sure, they might be a maniac who takes this as an affront to their authority and immediately subdues you in a violent manner. But in that case, you're not likely to have much luck just doing what you're told and cooperating (at least if you're not white).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I like to think of corgis as genetically modified wolves. I've gotta admit that wolves would be a lot less scary if they had 3 inch legs and a cartoon head. I'm sorry for the part I played in this derail. Pohl fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If you're detained or under arrest, then it's not smart. If an officer says that you're not either of those, however, you have no legal obligation to talk to them or be around them and can legally walk away. Sure, they might be a maniac who takes this as an affront to their authority and immediately subdues you in a violent manner. But in that case, you're not likely to have much luck just doing what you're told and cooperating (at least if you're not white). True, you have the legal right to walk away if you're not detained/under arrest, but it really is better just to be civil, so long as you aren't saying "OK that's fine" to warrentless searches without reasonable suspicion or other similar things (*cough* don't incriminate yourself *cough*) and don't try to judo throw them if they touch you or whatever. Cops are just, for the most part, people and getting pissy to them about a speeding ticket is dumb (you can contest things just fine at the station/court if you think they really were not warranted). Definitely try to be white though, it's very helpful. Syenite fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Right. My point is that cutting your own hair is ill advised, as is pretending that laypeople are qualified to read case law. Case law is pretty easy to read, especially since legal writing tends to be very precise and with its language.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Case law is pretty easy to read, especially since legal writing tends to be very precise and with its language. Lol someone hasn't read an Anthony Kennedy opinion in a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Case law is pretty easy to read, especially since legal writing tends to be very precise and with its language. Case law may be easy to read but it references so many other case laws that you suddenly find yourself buried under a mountain of historical writing even trying to understand something simple. I know that is the entire point of the law, but it can be quite daunting to realize that if you really want to understand even a simple judgement, you need to research and read a few hundred years of law that judgement was based upon. Then you need to research or understand the historical times some of those laws came out of... It can be a pretty massive endeavor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Case law may be easy to read but it references so many other case laws that you suddenly find yourself buried under a mountain of historical writing even trying to understand something simple. Eh as long as you know what the current rule is it doesn't really matter if you're versed in how that rule came to be, unless you're a legal academic or you're trying to reverse the rule. What makes case law tough to read for amateurs is that it isn't always clear whether a rule of law announced in a particular case is still good, if it's controversial, or if it's binding/persuasive authority within the relevant jurisdiction. That's why Westlaw/Lexis' shepardization function is so essential.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Garrand posted:The problem with this whole conversation is, occasional dumb post aside, it's not so much about acting as your own lawyer as that when cops suddenly show up at your door knowing your rights can be the difference between them walking off and hauling you in. Just the ability to cover your own rear end and make sure you don't accidentally incriminate yourself in some fashion. Don't the Fifth Amendment and Miranda rights deal with incriminating yourself/not having to do/say anything that could potentially land you in hot water? Wouldn't you just want to invoke them if you are ever uncomfortable or unsure of what to do next while you wait for somebody with training and experience in these sorts of things can tell you what to do? I find the whole discussion about how people should know everything a lawyer knows more than a little nuts, but expecting people to understand that they have a right not to incriminate themselves and the right to an attorney and that they should just shut up and wait for one is, at this point, pretty well ingrained into the cultural fabric of the USA I'd think. Law and Order and its billion spinoffs probably helped with that one. I should probably mention that I have absolutely no legal knowledge at all outside of a general knowledge of HR-related law, so maybe I'm missing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Free legal advice decision tree: 1. You are stopped by officer. 2. Ask: officer am I free to go? If answer is yes, leave. If answer is no proceed to 3. 3. Say "I invoke my sixth amendment right to counsel and my fifth amendment right to silence. 4. Say absolutely nothing else. My pro bono obligation has been met. You are welcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Free legal advice decision tree: Public defender approved. Edit: do not consent to searches but do not physically resist what you believe to be an illegal search or detention/arrest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Free legal advice decision tree: I'm incapable of understanding this without Westlaw linking some dumbass law student's journal article.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is the interaction that started this insane derail. LeJackal was literally wrong Am I? Seems like it was never resolved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Am I? Seems like it was never resolved. Why would you do this? Why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Why would you do this? Why? Because D&D goons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Am I? Seems like it was never resolved. Yes. You are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Didn't we have a DUI thread where all of these arguments were presented and the consensus seemed to be: gently caress you for driving while intoxicated even if you think you are ok. What I'm saying is, LeJackal should start a new thread about driving while impaired. It could be fun. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Would you argue that it was the right thing to do as punishment? Personally, I wouldn't. Ignoring the more particular facts of that case, no. But it's constitutional. My client there needed far, far more mental, physical, and drug assistance than he needed a car, and it's unlikely he was ever going to work again. I'd be surprised if he were still alive. It was sad. I don't even really like thinking about it now honestly (his life, not the car). Having seen asset forfeiture first hand, I think it's over used for small time crimes by the particular jurisdiction I was living in then. This was well before John Oliver? did a show about it. I took all these cases pro bono, and that then made me the "asset forfeiture guy" in that town. I'm not familiar with other states or the federal system, but it's pretty dang easy to seize contraband in Texas, so you'd really need to change the law. I don't know what that'd look like, but of the three cases I was personally involved in, I think it was being used as retribution or just as SOP, not to generate funds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Ignoring the more particular facts of that case, no. When I moved, I got rid of everything that wouldn't fit in my car. I was basically driving through Nevada with clothes, a few kitchen goods, books, my computer, and 2 cats. I also had about $1000 in cash on me because I was going to a new state and having cash seemed like a good idea. Driving through Nevada with that amount of cash scared the hell out of me. I hid it in the few kitchen items I had, but I was aware that if I was pulled over and my car was searched that money was probably gone. When I hit the California border I was stopped and asked if I had any fruit or plants. I know exactly why they do this, because it is important, and I just told them I only had 2 stupid cats. They laughed and waived me through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:58
|
|
Jarmak posted:Case law is pretty easy to read, especially since legal writing tends to be very precise and with its language. FWIW, Jarmak, I got it.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Free legal advice decision tree: There is just about zero chance you get a yes or no answer to question 2. You now get to either enjoy a consensual conversation with the officer or an arrest for fleeing. I like to call it Schrödinger's detainment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/armed-black-panthers-protest-sandra-bland-death-article-1.2324234 Let's see all the double standards come out in the media where apparently these people are "armed thugs/terrorists" while white militia members pointing guns at mosques and federal agents are apparently good citizens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your original assertion was that the National Guard did better than the police in Ferguson because they had federal training, but you haven't provided any evidence to support this, especially in light of the fact that, as far as I can tell, the Guard didn't do any police work. Also, federally trained Guardsmen were responsible for the Kent State shootings, and Military Police reservists were responsible for the detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. How does this square with your theory that federal training will result in better policing? Want to walk that back a little? Objective achieved. We now know why you act the way you do and why you so vehemently defend such a broken system. You yourself might be corrupt by turning a blind eye. It is this very kind of thinking that gets in the way of even trying to think of a solution let alone implement it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 06:05
|
|
if you think no one in the federal government has ever been signed off for training they didn't do.) In the second, the probationary officer disregarded his training and department policy, so I have a hard time seeing how you can fault the agency's training program for what he did.
Kanine posted:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/armed-black-panthers-protest-sandra-bland-death-article-1.2324234 It's the New York Daily News.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Objective achieved. We now know why you act the way you do and why you so vehemently defend such a broken system. You yourself might be corrupt by turning a blind eye. It is this very kind of thinking that gets in the way of even trying to think of a solution let alone implement it.  You know, you could have saved a bit of wear and tear on your keyboard by just typing, "I don't have a good answer to the problems you point out, so I refuse to address them."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's the New York Daily News. I mean this specifically is definitely going to turn into another talking point that reveals how racist a lot of of people are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Kanine posted:I mean this specifically is definitely going to turn into another talking point that reveals how racist a lot of of people are. There has been a woman pastor at the jail every day since Sandra Bland died and just a few days ago, the sheriff told her to go back to her church of satan. I couldn't understand him in the video. Is he sick/ill? That isn't a normal speech pattern. I'd be scared for my life if I was her. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheriff-in-sandra-bland-case-tells-pastor-go-back-to-the-church-of-satan_55c936a5e4b0f1cbf1e61aa2 That also gives me a lot of reasons, rational or not, to question how Sandra Bland died. What a loving joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 07:34
|
|