|
ActusRhesus posted:Ok. Glad we’re on the same page. I just get tired of “I’m so pro-women. Check out my feminist blog and pussy hat. WHY THE gently caress WONT YOU SLEEP WITH ME? I’M A SENSITIVE ALLY.” Or being told I should smile. Look. I don’t owe you a facial expression, rear end in a top hat. I’ve gotten that one from a liberal court. In a status conference with like 30 other attorneys. Jesus Christ the poo poo women have to go through to even work in this loving field. That said, you'll be glad to hear as olds are dying, the legal field in Norway is probably going to be northwards of 70% women pretty soon. Law school is already at around 80% women because they are the only ones with the grades to get in. We'll have a real world example of a gender neutral legal system pretty soon, hopefully. The poison tree thing is a pretty interesting solution. We pretty much chose this solution: blarzgh posted:I find this line of thinking kind of ridiculous. Do you mean to say that "no confession is ever admissible?" or that a cop can't order donuts without mirandizing the guy behind the counter? Or that a cop can't ask a neighbor, "what did you see before you heard the gunshots?" without reading them their rights? I'm sure your first thought is, "well if a cop suspects someone might be involved, they have to read them their rights." which also seems ridiculous because, "well, I was just looking for information, I didn't suspect anything." At the most basic level. However, we kind of draw a distinction between questioning and interrogation, of which the latter is where Miranda applies. Well, what's the difference you may ask? That's hard to answer, because there's a transition there. In practice, this rule is ignored constantly and cops will make extensive use of recording you either with their own mike or inside every cop car. Standard practice is in fact to question/interrogate before detaining, and only in the cases where it's obvious the person is a/the suspect must they be informed of this and their right to remain silent. The cops usually muddle through it more or less no matter if they are in shock, angry, drunk or high and conduct the interrogation regardless. Now, if there's a woke defending counsel and if they realize the circumstances are hosed up and a recording or a search is unlawful, there is a statute to have that evidence thrown out. However, coming from an inquisitorial tradition, the courts must weigh the quality and importance of the evidence against the way it was procured. This is mostly just left up to the judge in practical terms, which means that the overwhelmingly prosecution-biased courts will allow just about anything. I worked on an appellate case myself where the judge allowed an illegally obtained recording because it was the only proof of about five witnesses perjuring themselves in the municipal court case. It makes for a fairly chaotic system actually, since you can never be completely sure that you can get some bullshit evidence thrown out. ActusRhesus posted:Btw.... and this is no dig at Fish’s fine nation, but comparing rights under two different legal systems is a little more complicated than that. Ok. A more strict rights advisory practice. Good for defendant. A weaker suppression practice when things are done wrong Bc inquisitorial vs adversarial. Bad for defendants. Not saying one is better. But they are really too different at their core to be able to say “we should do things more like x.” (There also tend to be more convictions in systems without the jury wildcard) Word. I'm big on human rights, but for certain things also within the criminal law sphere, y'all have some better rights than we do. Police have different powers of temporary detention needing no crime on your behalf, near omnipotence regarding misdemeanours and fines, search warrants are written by the police for the police etc. Conversely, we have no plea deals. I am not allowed to make a deal with the prosecution in any form under any circumstance. yronic heroism posted:J/k obviously. Actually, to be clear for our foreign readers, there are many situations where people are undoubtedly detained for investigation but are questioned without a rights advisory. They basically need to be under arrest (or in a situation where a “reasonable person” thinks they are) to require a rights advisory. Some states may extend those rights further by statute or their own constitutions but I haven’t heard of any state where the cop can’t just ask their questions right away at a traffic stop, and that’s a situation where the driver is always detained by definition. See above. In every formal interview you are given a document to sign affirming you've been informed of the suspicion against you and your rights to avoid self-incrimination, as well as a public defender etc. This is also where the police lie to you and say you may be eligible for a reduced punishment if you confess (you are very often not, which you won't know because you're too dumb to ask your lawyer). Police also perform what they call "immediate interrogation" which is like getting detained, mirandized and interrogated immediately when they pick you up. At the sneakiest level, the cops can catch you doing something red-handed and start questioning you and later pretending they only later realized you were a suspect whereupon they then call you back to do an interview (they will have your ID because you are obligated to identify yourself and if you don't you can be non-criminally detained until they have positive id), and if you refuse to repeat yourself they submit the first questioning as your interview miranda be damned. They usually have you recorded as well. They are supposed to stop an interview and notify you that you are now a suspect etc. if during a routine witness questioning (for instance) you blurt out a confession, but this is usually admissable as a confession regardless and often on the testimony of the officer alone. So you see, some technical differences but really I don't see the practical difference at all. ActusRhesus posted:This is why I firmly believe police chiefs/sherrifs, DAs, and judges should not be elected. Appointed but subject to legislative committee or appointed commission review every x years. Elected tend to be too results oriented and focused on what their voter base wants than following the law.  Welcome to
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is one of the funnier documents i have read in my time and i suggest you all read it, and then snicker to think about what is going to get unleashed when it's no longer about nonsense like the ordering of trials: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4594533/7-11-18-US-Oppo-Manafort-Motion-to-Continue.pdf quote:That other reasons may account for this application is strongly suggested by a prison call in which Manafort discusses going to trial first in the D.C. Case and contends to the listener (who did not believe the D.C. venue was favorable) that the listener should “think about how it’ll play elsewhere….There is a strategy to it, even in failure, but there’s a hope in it.” Phone Call of Manafort (June 20, 2018), at 4:02-4:39. lmao did this dumdum not know his calls were being recorded
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:lmao did this dumdum not know his calls were being recorded the best part is that, by definition, he did this after he got thrown in jail because mueller intercepted his attempts at witness tampering so he should have gotten it beaten into him that everything he said and did was getting watched by mueller even if someone forgot to mention all jailhouse calls are recorded!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:At the most basic level. However, we kind of draw a distinction between questioning and interrogation, of which the latter is where Miranda applies. Well, what's the difference you may ask? That's hard to answer, because there's a transition there. Its actually pretty easy to answer. The transition is from "not in custody" to "now in custody." Your response would be: "but sometimes its not always clear whether someone is 'in custody' or not. My response will be: If you're not free to leave, then you're in custody. You: But sometimes the person will subjectively feel like they aren't free to leave, even though they can. Me: The Court already has an objective balancing test for whether someone is "in custody" because the notion of a "subjective test of the suspect's mental impressions" would be a ridiculous standard. I.e. "Did you feel like you were free to leave?" The answer, 100% of the time, which would always be irrefutable, would be "I did not feel like I was free to leave." You: Well then cops should always mirandize everyone for everything because people might not know their rights and could always feel like they're in custody! Me: Thats ridiculous. You: You're just a jackboot thug shill for The Man! Me: You're a bleeding heart pinko commie! Us: *fall into passionate lovemaking in your cabin in the woods, the steam rising hot, melting the snow of our hearts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
And that's how you heat an outhouse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And that's how you heat an outhouse. Still holding out for burning poop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Still holding out for burning poop. Isn't that a Rusty Venture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its actually pretty easy to answer. The transition is from "not in custody" to "now in custody." I laughed. Also, it's wrong because I AM ANAL. Under our system whether or not you've been detained is actually the difference between if you are a suspect (not detained, suspected of a crime, entitled to miranda) and accused (suspect and the police have performed some sort of action against you and/or formally accused you, possibly detained you, there are a bunch more rights, miranda etc.). There is no requirement to detain for a person to be entitled to a miranda-type warning. The difference has previously been held by the supreme court to be an intensity and nature of the questioning test ranging from a simple general inquiry (no miranda) to pointed questions meant to determine the guilt of the suspect (miranda). Sliding scale. Case by case basis. I also belive there's a time requirement so the police can prevent you from leaving without it formally being detaining you for like, an hour I think? Also I'm a cuddler so it'd get nice and cozy  Mr. Nice! posted:And that's how you heat an outhouse. Laughed even more. Look Sir Droids posted:Still holding out for burning poop. I'm building the deck around the cabin next week. I'll name it the poop deck in honor of you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
So now Fish’s cabin is heated by passionate law goon man love? I no longer want to vacation there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So now Fish’s cabin is heated by passionate law goon man love? I don't discriminate, you can bring a girlfriend if you want to turn it around on us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I don't discriminate, you can bring a girlfriend if you want to turn it around on us. Her girlfriend is an Orc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Sorry. I like dudes. And orc? Bitch, please. Drow or gtfo. (We are running a DnD out of the abyss campaign. I’m playing my character as Bards Gone Wild, Spring Break. Her goals are simple. 1) get high with the mushroom people. 2) bang a drow 3) save the world or some poo poo.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Please don't taint my lawman sex outhouse
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Sorry. I like dudes. "And when the law thread returned its attentions towards elf sex, the lamb opened the seventh seal, and there was silence for about the space of half an hour." Revelations 8:1
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And orc? Bitch, please. Drow or gtfo. They all look the same to me! Sad!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
So in job hunting chat, my interview at the CCRC went pretty well. Apparently I was wrong about a couple of details. I thought most of the work was done at the appellate level, but it basically yo-yos between the trial court and the SCoFL. The biggest concerns were my feelings on the death penalty and culture fit, which I think went well. By the end of the interview, the first chair and I were joking around about the verbatim photocopier deposition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the best part is that, by definition, he did this after he got thrown in jail because mueller intercepted his attempts at witness tampering Any private defense lawyer worth his salt would prefer a career defendant who even kinda knows the drill over a white collar rear end in a top hat who’s used to not being caught six ways from Sunday (if not for the sweet sweet  ).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:"And when the law thread returned its attentions towards elf sex, the lamb opened the seventh seal, and there was silence for about the space of half an hour." Revelations 8:1 I wonder if SV ever got out of the hinterlands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:They all look the same to me! Sad! Drow elf stole my bike.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I wonder if SV ever got out of the hinterlands. Does any JD ever “get out”?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
When I was a teenager I was outside a corner store trying to get someone to buy me beer. Cop pulls up, guy that was going to do it bailed. Cop asks where everyone is going. I told him I don't have to speak with him if I'm not under arrest and I don't have to speak to him if I am under arrest. Cop pulls gun. I get in my car and drive off (I'm 16 and white). Cop follows my car for an hour right behind my bumper waiting for me to violate some traffic law. Leaves me alone after an hour and my parents got a call from a police officer "worried about the things I said." Welp, that's my story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:(We are running a DnD out of the abyss campaign. I’m playing my character as Bards Gone Wild, Spring Break. Her goals are simple. 1) get high with the mushroom people. 2) bang a drow 3) save the world or some poo poo.) Bard-five. DM: The Lady is pleased with your work and lets you all stay at her estate. You have free reign to go anywhere you want. Me: Anywhere? DM: Not her bedroom. Me: Please, I'm a bard. If I want to see her bedroom, I'll see her bedroom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Asked a person to send her emails to me so I could respond to a subpoena. She said she FedExed them to me. Weird, but ok. Everybody else sent theirs directly to me via email. That was last week. Still didn’t have them so asked for the tracking number. She sends me the delivery confirmation. She sent them to the issuing attorney. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:When I was a teenager I was outside a corner store trying to get someone to buy me beer. To be fair based on your estimated age, this was probably right after Terry, right? Cops never gave me a hard time, but private businesses are another story. I once had a Barbecue Becky looking lady loudly demand I empty my pocket to confirm I was shoplifting. (I wasn’t shoplifting and she was momentarily abashed.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:To be fair based on your estimated age, this was probably right after Terry, right? Terry v Ohio was in 1968. Do I give internet vibes that I'm over 60? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Terry v Ohio was in 1968. Do I give internet vibes that I'm over 60? That'd make you 50 grandpa
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:That'd make you 50 grandpa Not to be a teenager in 1968-1972 (right after Terry).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Not to be a teenager in 1968-1972 (right after Terry). Typical lawyer always has to be right (my bad)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Terry v Ohio was in 1968. Do I give internet vibes that I'm over 60? Sorry, I guess I confused you with one of the resident Old Guy lawyers. (It’s the av.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Asked a person to send her emails to me so I could respond to a subpoena. She said she FedExed them to me. Weird, but ok. Everybody else sent theirs directly to me via email. Woof. I had a client I was helping in a pro per clinic include emails between them and their old attorney and therapist in the court filings for custody. That was a fun conversation about privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Apparently Kavanagh has $200,000 credit card debt on $220,000 with savings/retirement of $60,000. Place your bets! 2:1 gambling 3:1 hookers/ secret mistress 4:1 drugs 100:1 candles
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Lote posted:Apparently Kavanagh has $200,000 credit card debt on $220,000 with savings/retirement of $60,000. Trains
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Trains I'll give you 1:1 on that
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Bard-five. Right back at ya. Other favorite moment (this was as a swashbuckler that may as well have been a bard) Sketchy bar owner: I need you to get me x Me: that’s illegal, good sir. SBO: I’ll give you (amount) Me: not enough. I have expenses. SBO: like what? Me: crew. Bribes. Fuel. SBO: fuel? For a sailboat? Me: yeah. You know like a hot air balloon. They make a fire and it fills with hot air? It’s like that but we turn the fire sideways. DM/SBO: Ok. You’re going to need to roll deception on that. *natural 20.* goddamnit. It’s going to be one of *those* campaigns. This was the first roll of the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
I keep notes on the campaign, but I also have pages dedicated to potential band names, handy vicious mockery lines, sketches of lyrics in case I actually want to punish my group by singing for bardic inspiration, etc. I have also knocked out the first verse of a medieval, plague-themed "Another Hundred People." I don't know WHEN I'll need it, but I have it ready for the proper occasion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Lote posted:Apparently Kavanagh has $200,000 credit card debt on $220,000 with savings/retirement of $60,000. White House says it was for Nationals tickets and home improvement. So my money's on hookers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
Lote posted:Apparently Kavanagh has $200,000 credit card debt on $220,000 with savings/retirement of $60,000. Hope you bet on season tickets: https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...46a7_story.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
How can the poor man survive on his $220,000 salary as a public servant? And his wife makes only $60,000. They can barely afford to send their children to private school for $20,000 a year. WSJ should do a profile on how they're struggling to make ends meet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Imagine going into debt to watch the worst sport ever
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Social skills in d&d are horrible and rolling for them is even worse . Let alone crit success which I don't think is even the right rule!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:37
|
|
