It's entirely possible the penalty and consequences of refusing a test is less serious than the penalty and consequences of failing a test. It's important to know the specific law in your jurisdiction if you intend to go this route. For example, it wont work if the law regards refusing a test to be an admission of guilt.
I don't know where the GPP was referring to but in NSW, Australia, if you've been driving for less than three years (have a provisional licence),.02 is the limit and it's.05 once you have a full licence.
According to TFA, officials admitted that the breathalyzers had not been calibrated for at least six years. That's more than long enough, particularly under continuous use, to cast realistic doubt on the results produced by those units.
I'm also concerned about the attitude of District Attorney George Gascon, from TFA: "Gascon said there did not appear to be any malicious intent behind the police officers’ actions. He said the coordinators were apparently just too lazy to perform the test required every 10 days." We've got people dishonestly signing off that a test has been done on equipment used in court to justify serious penalties. That's at the very least perjury and contempt of court. So why no mention in TFA that the offending officers are being prosecuted?
Parent post is an excellent example of why you should never voluntarily involve the government in your life. Note how the author is utterly indifferent to the consequences of, essentially, tossing a man out of his own home for the duration of the investigation, however long that takes. Note the deep hostility to publicity (it's honesty and professionalism that thrives in the dark after all) and the attempt to paint publicity as being counter to this individuals interests.
""no unsupervised contact with a child under 16" is a pretty common bail condition for someone being investigated of Schedule One offences. It's entirely reasonable to err on the side of caution when bailing someone who's involved in an investigation such as this."
Here's a great reason to go a long distance out of your way to avoid attracting the attention of any government department. The above quote is devoid of any concern for the rights of the accused or for the damage that their process is likely to do to the life of the accused. The author rightly advises that the accused should immediately get a lawyer if not sooner. However, simply by deleting the offending material and keeping his head down, the accused could have avoided the need for a lawyer, the need to make payments both on the family home and wherever he moves to to comply with the supervision order. The accused was entirely correct when he speculated that he should not have reported it. Regrettably, he trusted the government. Government has repaid his trust in the only way it knows how.
Our rulers do not have our interests in mind. Keep your head down as much as you possibly can.
People aren't habituated to being penalized for unsafely using social media in the same way that they are habituated to being penalized for unsafe driving. I suspect the idea of police having access to information about every time they accelerate through a yellow light, exceed the speed limit or change lanes x times in y kilometers is going to be a lot more disturbing than distribution of information that they sell for pennies worth of discounts.
this is her computer, which she used daily for the scam she was running, and which she encrypted to cover her tracks. Forgetting the password seems unlikely.
This assumes that she is guilty. Not necessarily true if she is innocent.
"It's your duty as a citizen to serve on a jury"
If you don't want people going out of their way to avoid jury duty, the solution is simple and effective. If you're unwilling to do so then plainly you don't care if people find ways to skate.
If I'm on a jury and a defendant is about to get convicted on the basis of a bad translation of which I am aware, I'm not going to just say "so sad too bad you lose sucker".
Not really. The know the core reason why people avoid jury duty like the plague. If they paid jurors enough, people would be climbing over the top of each other to get into the jury pool. The only reason they look for ways to make the jury experience better is so that they don't have to pay jurors what they are worth. Judges and some prosecutors earn six figure incomes, paid by the state, yet jurors are lucky to get minimum wage and have their freedom of speech and movement radically restricted for the duration.
If your defense or prosecution relies upon the jury comprehending one crucial piece of information, you don't want jurors who will be reading when that information is being discussed in court.
I'll be interested to see if the Israelis start buying this technology
That's perfect:) wait for the UN general assembly to publish a resolution condemning Israel for using this evil evil (EVIL) technology to violate the rights of innocent suicide bombers and only then call on New York to discontinue its use citing the UN resolution.
I personally have been held up at gunpoint once about 10 years ago, but if I had a gun of my own, what could I have done? Got into a shooting match like counterstrike? Much more likely I would be dead now
Being in possession of a gun does not require one to use it even if the circumstances are not right to do so. Having a firearm in a violent confrontation gives one options that can be used or not used as the individual decides is appropriate. Gun control takes away options regardless of whether those options are appropriate under the particular circumstances or not. When you were held up, imagine how you would feel if some arrogant lunatic in a safe, far off location, dictated to you how you must respond to that situation. That's how other folks feel about being told they must either submit to superior force or resist at the enormous and unnecessary disadvantage of being disarmed.
You'd have a case that the constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban hunting. I can't even see the commerce clause being stretched far enough to cover that one.
Slashdot Mirror
It's entirely possible the penalty and consequences of refusing a test is less serious than the penalty and consequences of failing a test. It's important to know the specific law in your jurisdiction if you intend to go this route. For example, it wont work if the law regards refusing a test to be an admission of guilt.
I don't know where the GPP was referring to but in NSW, Australia, if you've been driving for less than three years (have a provisional licence), .02 is the limit and it's .05 once you have a full licence.
As far as the people subduing him were concerned, a farm animal is exactly what he was. A misbehaving farm animal at that.
According to TFA, officials admitted that the breathalyzers had not been calibrated for at least six years. That's more than long enough, particularly under continuous use, to cast realistic doubt on the results produced by those units.
I'm also concerned about the attitude of District Attorney George Gascon, from TFA: "Gascon said there did not appear to be any malicious intent behind the police officers’ actions. He said the coordinators were apparently just too lazy to perform the test required every 10 days." We've got people dishonestly signing off that a test has been done on equipment used in court to justify serious penalties. That's at the very least perjury and contempt of court. So why no mention in TFA that the offending officers are being prosecuted?
And, bonus! they get to take a DNA swab while they're at it.
Parent post is an excellent example of why you should never voluntarily involve the government in your life. Note how the author is utterly indifferent to the consequences of, essentially, tossing a man out of his own home for the duration of the investigation, however long that takes. Note the deep hostility to publicity (it's honesty and professionalism that thrives in the dark after all) and the attempt to paint publicity as being counter to this individuals interests.
""no unsupervised contact with a child under 16" is a pretty common bail condition for someone being investigated of Schedule One offences. It's entirely reasonable to err on the side of caution when bailing someone who's involved in an investigation such as this."
Here's a great reason to go a long distance out of your way to avoid attracting the attention of any government department. The above quote is devoid of any concern for the rights of the accused or for the damage that their process is likely to do to the life of the accused. The author rightly advises that the accused should immediately get a lawyer if not sooner. However, simply by deleting the offending material and keeping his head down, the accused could have avoided the need for a lawyer, the need to make payments both on the family home and wherever he moves to to comply with the supervision order. The accused was entirely correct when he speculated that he should not have reported it. Regrettably, he trusted the government. Government has repaid his trust in the only way it knows how.
Our rulers do not have our interests in mind. Keep your head down as much as you possibly can.
If the case is already made, the prosecutor has absolutely zero incentive to cut any deals. And (s)he wont.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/08/18/msnbc-obamacare-protesters-racist-including-black-gun-owner
Even with this (disputed by the US) fact, the US remains the UNs largest single contributor by a (very) wide margin.
I thought it referred to laws regarding dead balls in cricket.
Local weather is only not climate if it doesn't indicate continued warming.
People aren't habituated to being penalized for unsafely using social media in the same way that they are habituated to being penalized for unsafe driving. I suspect the idea of police having access to information about every time they accelerate through a yellow light, exceed the speed limit or change lanes x times in y kilometers is going to be a lot more disturbing than distribution of information that they sell for pennies worth of discounts.
If you have a greater risk thank I do, I think you should pay more to distribute it to me than I pay to distribute mine to you.
this is her computer, which she used daily for the scam she was running, and which she encrypted to cover her tracks. Forgetting the password seems unlikely.
This assumes that she is guilty. Not necessarily true if she is innocent.
Only the hot ones? Better hope it's not a really fugly chick. Or a cougar looking to collect child support.
Where, oh where, is the -1 whoosh mod option?
"It's your duty as a citizen to serve on a jury" If you don't want people going out of their way to avoid jury duty, the solution is simple and effective. If you're unwilling to do so then plainly you don't care if people find ways to skate.
If I'm on a jury and a defendant is about to get convicted on the basis of a bad translation of which I am aware, I'm not going to just say "so sad too bad you lose sucker".
Not really. The know the core reason why people avoid jury duty like the plague. If they paid jurors enough, people would be climbing over the top of each other to get into the jury pool. The only reason they look for ways to make the jury experience better is so that they don't have to pay jurors what they are worth. Judges and some prosecutors earn six figure incomes, paid by the state, yet jurors are lucky to get minimum wage and have their freedom of speech and movement radically restricted for the duration.
If your defense or prosecution relies upon the jury comprehending one crucial piece of information, you don't want jurors who will be reading when that information is being discussed in court.
I'll be interested to see if the Israelis start buying this technology
That's perfect :) wait for the UN general assembly to publish a resolution condemning Israel for using this evil evil (EVIL) technology to violate the rights of innocent suicide bombers and only then call on New York to discontinue its use citing the UN resolution.
I like it
Try this article first published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.
I personally have been held up at gunpoint once about 10 years ago, but if I had a gun of my own, what could I have done? Got into a shooting match like counterstrike? Much more likely I would be dead now
Being in possession of a gun does not require one to use it even if the circumstances are not right to do so. Having a firearm in a violent confrontation gives one options that can be used or not used as the individual decides is appropriate. Gun control takes away options regardless of whether those options are appropriate under the particular circumstances or not. When you were held up, imagine how you would feel if some arrogant lunatic in a safe, far off location, dictated to you how you must respond to that situation. That's how other folks feel about being told they must either submit to superior force or resist at the enormous and unnecessary disadvantage of being disarmed.
I can't refuse to let someone use public transportation like trains or buses if someone doesn't let me fondle their junk.
You'd have a case that the constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban hunting. I can't even see the commerce clause being stretched far enough to cover that one.