|
bird with big dick posted:Are bees animals Maybee But that's none of your beeswax
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Real Talk: would having a giggle fit at that question also cause one to fail the Test? It wasn't really a revelation you respond to by asking a lot of questions, but, like, probably. Even if not an official reason, we live near CIA and know a lot of military and people with clearance and everyone agrees CIA are the absolute worst adult spoiled jocks with their heads up their asses. Imagine Sterling Archer or OSI from Venture Bros but not (intentionally) funny and with 0 self awareness. Giggle fits would probably just be seen as insufficient commitment to the wannabe Jack Bauer bit and get you axed on soft skills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Giggle fits would probably just be seen as insufficient commitment to the wannabe Jack Bauer bit and get you axed on soft skills. Russian Torturer: This is the 69th day that you have refused to tell us the CIA's plans Me: Nice Russian Torturer: Nevermind, he's not CIA
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Once knew someone who was acing their CIA entrance exams until they failed the polygraph on ever having had sex with an animal Legally, humans are animals, so not sure what the problem is
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 07:18
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Once knew someone who was acing their CIA entrance exams until they failed the polygraph on ever having had sex with an animal The experience requirements for jobs these days is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 08:09
|
|
|
Makes note never to say “I screwed the pooch” in poly exam
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Once knew someone who was acing their CIA entrance exams until they failed the polygraph on ever having had sex with an animal Polygraphs are woo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Shouldn't have hosed the examiner's dog I suppose
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
Or at least done a better job of it
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:The person did something to piss off the examiner, or the examiner just didn't want them to pass for whatever reason. Is it woo if it coaxes the applicant into a snafu? The machine doesn’t have to scream “HEY EVERYBODY THIS GUY DEFINITELY hosed A GOAT!” If it gets the applicant started on a rant about how he didn’t gently caress a goat, but by God, it should be legal to do so, it has done its job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Is it woo if it coaxes the applicant into a snafu? That's pretty much it. The machine is woo, the psychological pressure is real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
How or why does mens rea/intent matter for charges based on quantity? For example: If Stanley Stoner buys an ounce of pot and gets caught on the way home, that may be misdemeanor possession. But if Stanley goes to WeedCostco, where they only sell in 8oz bulk packaging, it's automatically possession with intent to distribute. Why doesn't it matter if Stanley was just trying to buy weed once a year to reduce his Covid exposure risk? Or is this just how Tough on Drug Crime works?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
You’ll find that it often depends on the color of Stanley’s skin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:How or why does mens rea/intent matter for charges based on quantity? However the law is written. This isn’t just a drug thing - most theft / embezzlement style crimes have a tremendous variance depending on if you steal $10 or $10 million.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Is it actually automatic in America? Over here certain quantities create a presumption that the person intends to sell/supply, but that presumption can be rebutted in court. The courts are full of cases of people caught with like 5g of meth who are only going to trial to fight the sell/supply part, not the possession part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Is it actually automatic in America? Over here certain quantities create a presumption that the person intends to sell/supply, but that presumption can be rebutted in court. The courts are full of cases of people caught with like 5g of meth who are only going to trial to fight the sell/supply part, not the possession part. Welcome to the War On
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Is it actually automatic in America? Over here certain quantities create a presumption that the person intends to sell/supply, but that presumption can be rebutted in court. The courts are full of cases of people caught with like 5g of meth who are only going to trial to fight the sell/supply part, not the possession part. Just to speak for Louisiana, the state still has to prove intent to distribute. However, both simple possession and possession with intent to distribute have penalties that increase as the quantities of the drug in question increase.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You’ll find that it often depends on the color of Stanley’s skin. Yeah it's this OP
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
ulmont posted:However the law is written. This isn’t just a drug thing - most theft / embezzlement style crimes have a tremendous variance depending on if you steal $10 or $10 million.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Right, stealing $10 is prison time, stealing $10,000,000 is a small fine, and likely a promotion. Only if you stole it from the public, and not someone who has at least $10m more. Otherwise, that's a paddlin'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Right, stealing $10 is prison time, stealing $10,000,000 is a small fine, and likely a promotion. And if you steal $1,000,000,000 you're sentenced to be the junior senator from Florida.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 06:41
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:How or why does mens rea/intent matter for charges based on quantity? I can't speak for everywhere, but in California, intent absolutely matters. No matter how much you have, it isn't sales without intent. This is why, literally, defense attorney have a thing called the "Costco Defense."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 08:58
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:How or why does mens rea/intent matter for charges based on quantity? Just for flavour, in Norway almost not at all: The primary difference is possession of a single user dose -> violation of the restricted medical substances act, which is almost always a fine. Manufacture, import, export, purchase, sale, shipment or storage of more than a single user dose -> criminal narcotics charge, two years. Possession is a minor crime, but as long as you're below a single user dose AND it can't be proven that you intended to sell it that's what you're charged with. This is rarely relevant. Intent to sell, almost always proven by admission, makes it a more severe charge. If you're caught with a quantity above a single user dose (as in your example) this is storage and intent doesn't matter. Aggravated is determined by quantity and type of drug, 10 years, 15 years or 21 years depending on circumstances or amount. Intent to sell or distribute is almost not a factor. Systemic semantics. Cool aint it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 11:02
|
|
|
My movers aren't delivering my stuff. It's been 60 days since they picked up my stuff and they keep telling me "It'll be next week for sure." Today on a call they finally admitted that they have no concrete plans to deliver my belongings. I've filed complaints with relevant federal and state agencies, which they have ignored because they're toothless. I am in Colorado. Pickup was in New York. I was an idiot and hired a broker and they're located in Florida. The movers they contracted it out to are in New Jersey. In what state do I need to get an attorney and how do I find one who is good with moving companies? I was hoping a good threatening letter from a lawyer would probably do wonders to shake things up and get things moving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, that sucks. Not having personally paid for moving before (work paid last time), was that paid in advance, or what? Do you even know where your belongings are such that you could hire a different company to retrieve them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:My movers aren't delivering my stuff. It's been 60 days since they picked up my stuff and they keep telling me "It'll be next week for sure." Today on a call they finally admitted that they have no concrete plans to deliver my belongings. I've filed complaints with relevant federal and state agencies, which they have ignored because they're toothless. The answer to your question requires legal analysis. so. Id recommend hiring a local layer to you and going off of what she says.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
euphronius posted:hiring a local layer to you and going off Did you just recommend this person get a hooker Bad Munki fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Dec 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Holy poo poo, that sucks. Not having personally paid for moving before (work paid last time), was that paid in advance, or what? Do you even know where your belongings are such that you could hire a different company to retrieve them? I paid 1/3rd for a deposit, 1/3rd on pick-up, and was supposed to pay 1/3rd on delivery. I believe my belongings are at the contractor's warehouse in New Jersey. I have their address but no idea if that's the warehouse where they're being stored. Looking at streetview, it's hard to say because it's a storefront but it definitely looks like the back could be used for storage. Edit: I also don't really think they're trying to steal my belongings. They aren't that valuable and there isn't that much stuff. Most of it is just stuff with sentimental value. I think they just thought they could hold on to it until they found another person moving to Colorado so they could throw my stuff in there with that, but that hasn't happened so they're unwilling to move it. Rosalind fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Id recommend hiring a local layer to you and going off of what she says.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
Let's say there's an imaginary timeline: - landlord gets a new tenant (single woman) - her ex (who is not on the lease, and is an extremely obvious junkie, presentation-wise) tracks her down, breaks into the house, beats her up, and makes her give him her phone and a copy of the key - other tenants constantly complain of stumbling / slamming noises in the middle of the night, cops are called for noise complaints and wellness checks a few times but tenant says everything is fine - tenant sneaks a text to landlord weeks later explaining the situation and that boyfriend is hitting her. She says she wants him out too but is "scared of what he'll do" - landlord asks cops how to handle this safely and cops say "eh well you can't show us the texts where she alleges abuse, that is private, but we'll send someone to document noise complaints from the other tenants right now" What should be the landlord's next step? The landlord, tenant, and other apartment tenants all want this junkie gone and don't want to give him a way to game the system. He's simply a trespasser and can be told he'll be arrested if he comes back again right? Zero VGS fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Dec 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
Maybe the landlord stops by the apartments on his way to baseball practice one day. And maybe the landlord can change the locks and reinforce however he broke in the first time. It won't stop the tenant from handing over the key so it's not a permanent solution, but it stops him being able to walk in. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Dec 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 06:41
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:The landlord, tenant, and other apartment tenants all want this junkie gone and don't want to give him a way to game the system. He's simply a trespasser and can be told he'll be arrested if he comes back again right? Sounds like that thing that never happened where everyone was in on it and there was no mystery and nobody cares he's gone and everyone in the building helped buried the victim in the basement and never spoke of it again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 09:16
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:"eh well you can't show us the texts where she alleges abuse, that is private, but we'll send someone to document noise complaints from the other tenants right now" This is where the facts of your hypothetical become unbelievable - some criminal law goon is free to correct me, but that interaction does not track At All with my understanding of the 4th amendment. Depending on the State this hypothetical takes place in, the individual in question may either be a trespasser, or be a guest of the tenant, as far as the lease was concerned, unless the guest exceeded the time permitted for staying over under the lease. If they are a guest, and the Landlord prohibited the guest from entering the premises without legal justification, the landlord would be in breach of the lease to the tenant, and the tenant would have the right to enforce whatever her rights under the State's property law or under the lease against the landlord, whether that is sue for damages, sue to permit the guest reentry onto the property, or terminate/breach the lease herself, or something else. A residential lease is a contract between the owner of the property and the lessee of the property; the landlord 'sells,' for a monthly fee, the right to occupy a certain space, subject to a list of conditions. If the tenant breaks one of the rules of occupying that premises, the tenant is in breach of the lease. If the landlord breaks one of their rules (or prohibits the tenant from exercising one of their rights under the lease), then the landlord is in breach of the lease. Many states have certain domestic abuse protections and rules with respect to tenancy as well. In this hypothetical, I would caution the landlord against self-help without the guidance of a local lawyer, as this hypothetical represents the intersection of real estate law, criminal law, criminal procedure, family law, the individual psychology of multiple people who aren't in a good way at the moment, and practical financial considerations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
As an aside, how often does a stereotypical methhead abusive oxygen thief like this example seek legal assistance? Not being snarky just genuinely interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
Outrail posted:As an aside, how often does a stereotypical methhead abusive oxygen thief like this example seek legal assistance? Not being snarky just genuinely interested. Guys like this always seem to have a mother waiting in the wings to mortgage her house for his bail/legal defense. Don't underestimate the financial resources of woman-beating junkies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
I wonder how often criminal defense firms get paid up front by something other than crime money or a concerned relative
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
I wonder why cops would want to insist an abuse victim's testimony isn't evidence of abuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:This is where the facts of your hypothetical become unbelievable - some criminal law goon is free to correct me, but that interaction does not track At All with my understanding of the 4th amendment. Soylent Pudding posted:I wonder why cops would want to insist an abuse victim's testimony isn't evidence of abuse. Yeah, that was the part that had me the most befuddled as well. Anyway, let's advance the hypothetical timeline a bit: The landlord pressed the police dispatcher on why the texts alleging abuse weren't a good enough reason to get in this junkie's face, and suggested they read between the lines and question the tenant directly since she seemed to be under duress, so the police went to the apartment and wound up uncovering that said junkie had multiple warrants out for him (maybe tenant dropped some hints?) and arrested him on the spot. Tenant called landlord to say they saved her life. Police then told landlord that the tenant has to be the one to get a restraining/no-trespass order, as "the tenant might tell the landlord that the abuser was unwelcome when in fact the tenant keeps inviting the abuser back and is embarrassed to admit it". I guess the question now is, can the landlord get a no-trespass if they have it in writing from the tenant that the abuser is unwelcome (or ban him regardless on justification of the constant noise complains from other tenants)? The tenant doesn't exactly have her poo poo together in general and I don't see her navigating the courts to do this herself, especially in this pandemic backlog.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
My instinct says "no" because at the end of the day she still has the right to change her mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
If the landlord is in the business of renting out property, they should be familiar with the laws regarding the rental of property where they do so, and/or have a resource (lawyer) they can check with. Some places may allow a guest not on the lease to be banned as a trespasser, many places likely do not. I live in a boss hog nightmare of a state, and every lease I've ever had restricted overnight guests to some arbitrary X days a year. It may or may not be legal in my state, and it may or may not be a way to ban someone as a trespasser. Only a lawyer who practices in the state where your landlord rents the property can say for sure and advise that landlord. As loathe as I am to even appear to suggest anyone not get involved when someone attacks a partner/former partner, the landlord should understand that the person targeted often does things that don't seem to make sense; e.g. refusing to testify, allowing an attacker back in, turning on the person who intervened while their head was being caved in, etc. Partner and domestic violence is complex.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:08
|
|