|
Yes
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I was legitimately curious to know what the potential consequences of telling people to do hyperbolic violence on the internet, or telling people to do specific violence on the internet. Like can you charge the people in a discord for creating an extremist who goes to shoot up a school? It would depend. The Michelle Carter case would probably be instructive on how you'd do that. The encouragement would probably need to be specific and persistent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:Out of curiosity, why? Is it because it would incriminate his client, or at least tip off that his client as admitting to a crime? My initial reaction is "ACAB" but want to get your take. It's more foundational than that. Your duty is to keep your client's confidences. You literally have no right to betray that confidence outside of a very narrow exception. Even under those rare circumstances, the betrayal still isn't required, you just won't be punished for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
To piggyback, many people incorrectly assume lack of visible enforcement of internet speech directly calling for violence and then resulting in actual violence = you have some amorphous 1st amendment protection to do the same. You don't, it's no different than calling for violence and then getting it in any other context, and hiding behind usernames and anime avatars won't do anything for you when Twitch or Discord or whomever gets a subpoena.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It's more foundational than that. Your duty is to keep your client's confidences. You literally have no right to betray that confidence outside of a very narrow exception. Even under those rare circumstances, the betrayal still isn't required, you just won't be punished for it. Got it, thanks for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Some countries even practice something like "moral accessory" based on moral support or encouragement to do crime. Sometimes, if it's a violent political group or organization, the bar for accessory or attemp accessory is lowered. That's when poo poo gets real interesting, because the internet cops are starting to discover chat rooms, apps and forums. In many ways, surveillance and evidence gathering has never been this easy or this legal. Which poses some interesting legal challenges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:To piggyback, many people incorrectly assume lack of visible enforcement of internet speech directly calling for violence and then resulting in actual violence = you have some amorphous 1st amendment protection to do the same. You don't, it's no different than calling for violence and then getting it in any other context, and hiding behind usernames and anime avatars won't do anything for you when Twitch or Discord or whomever gets a subpoena. And the Michelle Carter case is an exceptionally narrow exception. Bad facts make bad law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
joat mon posted:And the Michelle Carter case is an exceptionally narrow exception. Bad facts make bad law. Has SCOTUS granted or denied cert? I believe they petitioned this summer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Has SCOTUS granted or denied cert? I believe they petitioned this summer. SCOTUS asked the state for a response, which was filed just before Thanksgiving. Carter's reply brief was filed Monday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Because the officer had written his last ticket of the day to that dude for 45 in a 35, he got off before he got the memo, and forgot about the ticket bc lots of other tickets. This dude had gotten his speeding ticket within the ~ 30 minute window where TXDoT had taken down the signs, but the memo hadn't gone around yet! Is this because the lack of speed signs meant the legal speed limit on that section of road actually was 45, or because in America ignorance of the law is a defence? Over here I don't think you could win even if it was legitimately not signposted because technically that's a mistake of law rather than fact (i.e. you're aware of which road you're driving on, just not that the law on that road is to drive at a particular speed). There's a famous case about it here where a guy who wanted to go abalone fishing went and got an official map of the places he was allowed to do that, except the map was wrong and he ended up accidentally fishing somewhere he wasn't allowed to. It went all the way to the high court where the judges basically went "why the gently caress did you prosecute this instead of using your discretion and letting it go, now we have to find against him because technically he's in the wrong since he knew where he was and the law says he shouldn't have been there."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Is this because the lack of speed signs meant the legal speed limit on that section of road actually was 45, or because in America ignorance of the law is a defence? No, each size and type of road has a "default" speed limit so if you don't see a speed sign, you have to assume the limit is whatever is on the books. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse here. The issue there was TXDoT had done road construction which changed the default speed limit due to size and # of lanes (added a lane).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Is this because the lack of speed signs meant the legal speed limit on that section of road actually was 45, or because in America ignorance of the law is a defence? Over here I don't think you could win even if it was legitimately not signposted because technically that's a mistake of law rather than fact (i.e. you're aware of which road you're driving on, just not that the law on that road is to drive at a particular speed). How does the loving high court not have discretion here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:How does the loving high court not have discretion here? the way the american legal system is supposed to deal with things that are technically against the law but would be insane to prosecute someone for is prosecutorial discretion (jury nullification also exists, but that is a whole can of worms about if jury nullification is a legal right, or simply something that exists as a feature of the jury system but is not formally a legal right of a jury). the high court doesn't have discretion because its rulings are precedent: what goes for one goes for all, and so a one-time exception because the facts were just crazy will get stretched to try and fit new cases. prosecutorial discretion, on the other hand, establishes no precedent - nobody is entitled to it except in cases where the discretion is clearly biased such that it's selective prosecution
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
You also have pardons and commutations in that framework
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the high court doesn't have discretion because its rulings are precedent: what goes for one goes for all, and so a one-time exception because the facts were just crazy will get stretched to try and fit new cases. prosecutorial discretion, on the other hand, establishes no precedent - nobody is entitled to it except in cases where the discretion is clearly biased such that it's selective prosecution Basically this but also just... that's not what judges are for? They are supposed to interpret the law impartially, even the highest court in the land can't just go "this is unfair" and decide something that the law doesn't allow for. I mean in a lot of cases they do have leeway to interpret the law in the way they think is the most fair, but this was a completely cut and dry case. Kudos to Google for seeing my search for "australian precedent fishing in the wrong place high court" and giving me an actual relevant page as the top result which let me find the actual judgement. I forgot that during the hearing the government promised to reimburse the poor guy for all the fines and legal fees he'd incurred, and the court ordered costs against the government even though they won the case. Super loving weird case. Ruined his life even though he eventually got the money back given that he'd had to spend years and years fighting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
The speeding offenses are typically (1) driving in excess of the posted speed limit, (2) driving at speeds unsafe under the circumstances, and (3) absolute maximums (e.g. “no person shall operate a vehicle on any roadway in excess of 55 mph, unless a lower speed is posted, except: [exceptions for freeways and whatever else].” If there is a change in the speed limit but the sign posting that limit is removed, then the last posted sign is the posted speed limit assuming it’s not in excess of the absolute maximum and isn’t unsafe. If 45 isn’t unsafe on that stretch of roadway, and it doesn’t exceed the state’s absolute maximum speed, then it’s not a violation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The speeding offenses are typically (1) driving in excess of the posted speed limit, (2) driving at speeds unsafe under the circumstances, and (3) absolute maximums (e.g. “no person shall operate a vehicle on any roadway in excess of 55 mph, unless a lower speed is posted, except: [exceptions for freeways and whatever else].” Ah thanks, that makes sense and is much more user-friendly than the alternative of different areas of road just having different speeds attached and if you get it wrong for any reason you're screwed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Ah thanks, that makes sense and is much more user-friendly than the alternative of different areas of road just having different speeds attached and if you get it wrong for any reason you're screwed. But paying the fine is cheaper than taking a day off work to contest the fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
Outrail posted:But paying the fine is cheaper than taking a day off work to contest the fine. Do you want higher fines to change that calculous?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
No there should be a law on the books that if you have a court date, you get a days pay for the day you missed work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Turtlicious. posted:No there should be a law on the books that if you have a court date, you get a days pay for the day you missed work. You think your employer should to have to pay you while you deal with the consequences of your criminal activity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Yes because you're innocent until you're proven guilty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Turtlicious. posted:Yes because you're innocent until you're proven guilty. Well I am, those other bastards are guilty, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You think your employer should to have to pay you while you deal with the consequences of your criminal activity? My local magistrate court sends out summonses for "the week of [Monday's calendar date], and won't tell people when their actual court date is until that monday. So 3/4th's of the weeks' docket ends up having to take two days off work (that Monday, and a following day). It's both maddening and impractical but it's especially pernicious for people who have service-industry jobs and don't have freedom to set their own schedules. The net result is a lot of people get tried in absentia for cases they totally could have beaten if they were able to be present (e.g., public disorderly conduct by someone who could prove they had a concussion at the time if they were there to testify, but the $100 fine is less of a hassle than potentially losing a job for two days of no-show).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My local magistrate court sends out summonses for "the week of [Monday's calendar date], and won't tell people when their actual court date is until that monday. So 3/4th's of the weeks' docket ends up having to take two days off work (that Monday, and a following day). Oh yeah poor people are completely hosed in the usa criminal justice system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Turtlicious. posted:No there should be a law on the books that if you have a court date, you get a days pay for the day you missed work. I think there are a lot of days that should be compensated but aren't under current US law. Maternity leave comes to mind, as do a lot of other similar emergencies / family commitments. In a right to work state the employer would probably just fire an hourly employee anyway. Why pay them for the missed day when you can just part with them because their performance displeases you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
If it's a simple court appearance you should be able to skype or FaceTime in with an approved app. Doctors can prescribe meds over the internet, why can't you get justice* in the same way. *lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Outrail posted:If it's a simple court appearance you should be able to skype or FaceTime in with an approved app. Sure, you can use the state of the art video conferencing software the court installed, if you're rich enough for a computer that will do it, you just need Macromedia Flash, Internet Explorer 6, and Windows 98 or better. Netscape is not supported, and your monitor must be 800x600. Sorry, 1024x768 is NOT supported, and the court system cannot provide any technical support. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Dec 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Many jp courts in Texas make you show up for unopposed motions and sometimes won’t grant them if opposing counsel didn’t fly in from another town for an uncontested motion to conduct discovery because how does the judge know it’s really unopposed Also they don’t have email and do everything by fax. Surely a muni court that handles speeding tickets is going to go to professional grade Skype
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You think your employer should to have to pay you while you deal with the consequences of your criminal activity? No, if the State wants you in court the State should pay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:I think there are a lot of days that should be compensated but aren't under current US law. Maternity leave comes to mind, as do a lot of other similar emergencies / family commitments. Voting days
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
Outrail posted:If it's a simple court appearance you should be able to skype or FaceTime in with an approved app. The real answer is that if it isn't worth making everyone come to one physical location, it shouldn't be in the courts at all in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
Yes, we should make it impossible to enforce traffic laws, and erase all consequences for recklessly driving 4,000lb murder machines
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
Just make all cars very, very rickety. That way they can't go faster than 30mph and that way everyone is mostly safe without moving violations
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
Just put engines on the bikes so they can keep up
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Just make all cars very, very rickety. That way they can't go faster than 30mph and that way everyone is mostly safe without moving violations A long rusty metal spike protruding from the steering wheel and ending just in front of the drivers chest will make most people drive slower.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
Turtlicious. posted:Yes because you're innocent until you're proven guilty. just wanted to say this was real dumb and made me smile. delicious combo of entitled/ignorant/illogical. "idk just fine uh... that guy? instead" Kawasaki Nun posted:Just make all cars very, very rickety. That way they can't go faster than 30mph and that way everyone is mostly safe without moving violations this did too, even though it was on purpose joat mon posted:No, if the State wants you in court the State should pay. and this would be the real answer, for everything not just traffic stuff, but as the malcom in the middle theme song says "life is unfair". it wouldn't be unreasonable at all to make The Man pay at least lost wages if it turns out you're not guilty after they drag you in. it's some real bullshit that they can just charge you with stuff until something sticks with 0 repercussions, getting paid the whole time and never risking a thing as you struggle for your freedom with diminishing resources. i have absolutely seen this used to harass people/ruin lives and it makes me sick. conviction or not, see what a couple years unemployed and in and out of court does to a family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 09:40
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:A long rusty metal spike protruding from the steering wheel and ending just in front of the drivers chest will make most people drive slower. That was pretty much all cars up until the early 60s or so. The spike went from the chest all the way to the very front of the car, right about where the front airbag sensors are now. e: A hollow steel spike protected within a larger steel rod, both non-collapsible, starting well forward of the engine.  In this picture the car is being trained to dive directly onto the spike. joat mon fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Dec 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yes, we should make it impossible to enforce traffic laws, and erase all consequences for recklessly driving 4,000lb murder machines Most traffic offenses should just be administrative fines without the possibility of a criminal record or jailtime. At that point, you could get sufficient due process from an administrative hearing. It's absolutely asinine to hold a full criminal trial for petty traffic offenses like driving without proof of insurance or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Most traffic offenses should just be administrative fines without the possibility of a criminal record or jailtime. At that point, you could get sufficient due process from an administrative hearing. An administrative proceeding wouldn't afford the same market for traffic defense attorneys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 19:37
|
|
