What about these claims are not possible? If I claim your pet invisible purple unicorn witch put a hex on me and that gave me genital warts, should I be allowed to sue you for damages?
The defendant is able to make a motion requiring plaintiff to produce any evidence that they have, and have the judge rule on if that evidence is compelling at all.
This isn't a common motion, because often times the person making the claim has consulted with a lawyer, and the lawyer knows how to put things to indicate that they have evidence.
However if you go into court and make a claim of an invisible purple unicorn giving you genital warts, then you're very likely going to get smacked down in court with a motion to dismiss.
That Supreme Court decisions are guessed within a vote or two almost every time because the judges base everything not on the law, but on their personal opinion then use the law as an excuse to push their personal beliefs.
You're wrong.
It has been used as a get out of jail free card. And legal opinions are facts.
Citation needed. Yes legal opinions are "facts", but prosecutors do not issue factual statements saying that they will not prosecute a crime. They state that they decline prosecution at this time, however the acts make be entirely illegal.
Do you really want to learn anything about law in this discussion or do you just want to remain an ignorant about this shit?
That's an interesting point, but a traffic ticket generally isn't regarded as a criminal offense (except I guess DUI stuff, but that's a whole 'nother league) and there is no incentive to keep yourself out of a holding cell until your court date.
If you are arrested for anything else under the sun you are not REQUIRED to pay anything just to get the case to court. If you want your ticket to go before a judge for any reason you are required to pay the state money, up front, that they will be slow in returning (if they ever do). If you go to court for any other reason that is NOT a flagrant revenue grab by the state, standing before a judge is free.
It may be legal with enough lawyerific wrangling, but it's still not kosher, right, or even vaguely legitimate.
In order to file a small-claims court suit in Washington state, one must pay $25 up front before it will be filed. Any other civil court suit requires a payment of about $200 in court costs.
You are actually required to pay court costs up front for nearly everything. Certain things do not require paying court costs, for instance, civil protection orders where violence or stalking has occurred.
In fact, you're kind of lucky that the court costs to contest a ticket are even refunded to you. In some states, even if you win, you still have to pay some court costs.
Thats common enough that there's even a legal definition for it. Estoppel. If the people charged with deciding whether or not it's legal say it is legal, then it *is* legal, even if someone changes their mind later (from that point on you can be charged, but not while holding the estoppel "get out of jail free" card).
... you're wrong. Estoppel stops people from changing facts... it cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for preventing prosecution.
Prosecutorial discretion is not governed by estoppel, because (1) the decisions are made upon each individual case, so just because a prosecutor declines to prosecute in one case, does not mean that he must decline to prosecute a different case with similar facts. (2) just because a prosecutor declines to prosecute, he does not make any statements of fact as to if something is legal or not. In fact, a prosecutor can make every assertion that something is illegal, but he is simply unable to prosecute due to for instance, lack of evidence.
While laws are provided to state that giving alcohol to children is explicitly illegal, that does not mean that one could not be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The reason why it is separately stated, is because giving alcohol to a minor is a more specifically "heinous" crime, and thus treated with a larger fine, or longer jail time.
Drug paraphernalia was made illegal in order to be able to convict drug addicts of something even if they no longer have actual drugs on themselves. Drug paraphernalia used to be simply evidence of drug use... then they turned it into something illegal itself.
The "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" is a specific catch all that holds that if you are a contributing factor in that child breaking the law, then you are at fault yourself. In fact, giving children alcohol is typically charged with not only providing alcohol to children, but with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
You're showing a profound lack of understand of the law in this case. The DA is directly stating that any teacher who materially contributes to a child of age 16 or under having sex could be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. AND HE IS MAKING A VALID LEGAL ARGUMENT.
Anyone standing up for that law will naturally sounds like a twit.
Which does make him a twit. Especially since he's the DA and if he says it's legal, it is. If the person prosecuting the crimes refuses to prosecute, it's legal. That's the point of checks and balances.
No, it does not make him a twit. Sometimes, when something quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's just a guy who was forced to wear a duck outfit.
Also, declining prosecution it does not make it legal. What you're describing is prosecutorial discretion. It does not make something "legal", and in fact, if another DA comes in within the statute of limitations, that new DA can choose to file charges.
Prosecutorial discretion very explicitly does not validate or legalize any particular action, because it prevents the possibility of someone using the fact that someone else (or even the same person) from claiming that because someone else wasn't tried for something that they shouldn't be tried.
Good luck getting to court and arguing "but the previous DA told me that giving this 15-year old a condom was going to be ok." It may have been ok with him, but is is still not legal.
You're free to disagree... but this Wisconsin DA is a lawyer... are you?
Nope. Are you? I'm well versed in logic, and there's none that stands up for making safety training illegal, no matter whether the act is legal or illegal in itself.
No, I am not a lawyer, but I am well-versed in logic, and I have actually read law to some degree. And I guarantee you that this DA is also well-versed in logic, potentially to a greater degree than you are.
What I stand up for is ensuring that the safety training actually legal, and not improvising some hack job that the next DA, or the DA in the next county over, can turn around and invalidate.
You're failing at very basic root cause analysis here. You're presuming that the problem here is the DA, when it is the LAW ITSELF that is the problem.
I do not disagree in anyway that this safety training should be legal, however one cannot simply say that is good enough.
I can see a perfectly reasonably legal argument according to Wisconsin Statutes, that if you hand a condom to a 15-year old that it would be encouraging that person to violate the law, and a more severe law in fact even than handing them a drink of alcohol.
Laws requiring absolute abstinence of individuals who have already reached sexual maturity are wrong.
Let's look at an except from the actual letter describing his legal argument:
If a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child -- or even where the 'natural and probable consequences' of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child -- that teacher can be charged under this statute" of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
His argument is RIGHT ON here. THIS IS WHAT WISCONSIN LAW SAYS. Just because he wants to enforce the law, and you disagree with him does not change the fact that WHAT HE IS SAYING IS A VALID LOGICAL LEGAL ARGUMENT.
If a teacher knows a child age 16 or under is having sex, then that child is, by definition of Wisconsin state law, a victim of sexual assault, and teachers are bound by law to report such sexual assault to authorities regardless of the age of their partner.
Like it or not, agree with its morality or not giving children age 16-and-under condoms in Wisconsin is just as irresponsible as giving them alcohol.
I do not believe that marijuana should be illegal, but that does not mean that I do not risk arrest by growing it or using it. Having medical marijuana still does not make it legal, because it is federal law that makes marijuana illegal.
The purpose of the photograph isn't to prove you ran a red light. The motion sensors, and in some cases underground magnetometers, can detect if your car enters the intersection on a red. The only purpose of the photograph is to record your license plate so they know who to send the ticket to. The photograph is one, but not the only, piece of evidence.
I would be pleasantly surprised if any city/county/state were to actually produce such evidence to a court to back up a red-light camera picture.
...snip.. (frankly, highly illegal) practice of my state demanding court costs up front if you take the ticket to court, to be refunded if you win. I'm fairly sure that violates the innocent-before-proven-guilty clause in both state and federal constitutions.
The more I learn about the law, the more I learn why it is important to talk to a lawyer in many situations.
What they're demanding here is a "bond", which is entirely legal, and not in any way a violation of state or federal constitutions. There is no presumption that you are guilty, there is merely a requirement that court costs be paid up front.
This is no different than placing bonds on defendants, which are refunded in the event that the defendant does show up in court.
you forgot to add, "after thinking about it, an emergency stop probably would have stopped me before the intersection, but the driver behind me looked close enough that he would have rear ended me had i attempted that."
If you cannot safely perform an emergency stop at any time, then you are travelling too fast. If the car behind you is likely to rear end you if you perform an emergency stop at your current speed, then you slow down.
The stopping distance of a vehicle is a function of friction, speed, and mass.
Actually, vehicle performance has very little to do with friction. Traction is a reasonably different concept from friction, and if you're using exclusively friction of the tires to the road to stop your car, then you're locking up your tires.
Traction levels of tires depend upon material, and adhesiveness as well as friction coefficients. Large jumbo jet tires are made of almost entirely natural rubber because it has some of the best adhesiveness of any rubber. The performance of a racing car can change significantly with softer, more-adhesive tires.
Worse so is that a yield sign sets up an automatic presumption of guilt to the person with it in the event of an accident.
Unless one can show that the other person did something entirely unpredictable with intent to cause an accident, if you have a yield sign, you're at fault... the sign told you that you have to yield to all other traffic.
I have been in that situation many times. Specifically, I'm turning left, and there's no left-turn arrow, so when green comes up, I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into.
In New Mexico State Law, this is expressly permitted. One is allowed to enter an intersection without left-turn signal with intent to make a left-hand turn, and actually perform the turn even if the light turns red before completing it. But only one car is allowed to perform this maneuver per cycle.
This is different than "running a red light", as you are given explicit license to make that turn.
red light cameras merely result in more rear-end collisions as people slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket.
Citation needed.
While I'm perfectly aware that reality does not fit with legal theory, stating that one is unable to stop when they should because of a fear of rear-end collisions is nonsense, and smacks of driver irresponsibility.
Defensive driving is the responsibility of every driver. If you're afraid that you would be unable to perform an emergency stop without being rear-ended, then you need to slow down, until you're going a speed safe enough that you can stop for both you, and the person behind you.
It's awesome that car safety has gotten to the point that we care more about who is at fault for an accident than actually being in one, but defensive driving cannot simply be left to languish.
It's more that they have learned to rationalize away the dissonance and since that's the only time they ever think hard, they unwittingly condition themselves into being thinking-averse. This is why apologists actually get angry when you try to debate them and why they tend to be hostile towards education.
Non sequitur. The issue is teaching them how to use them, not whether they are provided. Teaching someone what a condom is and how to use it isn't the same as giving the keys to a car to an under age person.
You're free to disagree... but this Wisconsin DA is a lawyer... are you?
Oh, except that the having of sex is a felony for the under 16-year-old, rather than just a moving violation.
So? Either it's a violation of the law, or it's not.
Felonies, are worse than misdemeanors, are worse than traffic violations.
So, let me put this in perspective... a 16 year old having sex with anyone makes their partner a felon between second-degree reckless homicide (Class D), and second-degree intentional homicide (Class B). Even if that person is a child who is 13...
So, again. Summary: Wisconsin law is stupid draconian. Anyone standing up for that law will naturally sounds like a twit.
One is not allowed to begin instruction into driving until a person is old enough to get a learner's permit.
One can be legally (privately) taught at any age and can get training behind the wheel on private property and can begin formal instruction when a permit is legal but a license is not. From the statements in this, a parent teaching a child privately would still be illegal, when the same with driving wouldn't be.
Well, go complain about the zero tolerance age 16 abstinence-only law. The DA is still not the twit in this story... the abstinence-only law making it illegal to have sex at all before 16, is the problem.
Whatever one's argument about if schools should supply condoms or not, it is undeniable that a school in Wisconsin providing condoms in any way to a person under the age of 16 is equivalent to allowing that person to drive prior to having a license...
Oh, except that the having of sex is a felony for the under 16-year-old, rather than just a moving violation.
At the end of the day, thinking for them is more about ego-defense than actual synthesis.
You're describing Apologetics, right?
You know, this idea explains a lot why American society is so prone to "cognitive dissonance". People refuse to recognize hypocritical beliefs on their part, simply because they fail to actually produce their own synthesis of their own thoughts. They're perfectly fine mapping out completely opposing beliefs given the argument at hand.
One is not allowed to begin instruction into driving until a person is old enough to get a learner's permit.
So, we only provide driving lessons to children once they can start legally driving. The DA is arguing that we can't teach children sex until they can start legally having sex.
I totally agree that this is STUPID... but the laws make anything but abstinence before 16 a crime.
He said that teaching anyone under 16 about condoms is legally contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Showing a fifteen year old how to use a condom does not equal having sex with a person under twelve.
Wisconsin state law used to be 16. Again, with the same no-exception language that it now has for 12. Thus, explaining to a kid under 16 how to properly use a condom is effectively telling the 16 year old "ok, when you're breaking the law, make sure to use a condom."
Granted the age is now 12.
Correction, Wisconsin state law is at 16. Same no-exception policy.
Thus, with two 15 year olds having sex, they are both felons.
Teenagers are allowed to legally drive. In Wisconsin, they are not legally able to have sex.
The DA said 16, because the law used to be 16, with the same no-exception policy (ageofconsent.com still posts that the age is 16, I used the webpage to locate the proper statue and verify the new information)... now it's 12. Even lawyers can have difficulty keeping up with the way laws are changing.
Correction to this. DA is correct. Per Wisconsin Statute 948.02 (2) Sexual Assault of a Child in the Second Degree is at age 16.
while a 10-year old in Wisconsin cannot legally have sex with anyone.
Correction to this. Per Wisconsin Statute 948.02 (2), the age of consent is 16. If they're younger than 12, then it's a Class B felony, if they're younger than 16, then it's a Class C felony.
So, again. Two 15 year olds have sex, and they're both felons.
State law provides that anyone having sex with a person under 12 is guilty of a Class B Felony. He's literally not making this shit up... the laws are just that backwards in Wisconsin.
Yeah, you're right, it's pretty messed up to make 12 the age of consent. I always thought 18 was too high, but dropping it down to 12 is fucking ridiculous.
Yes, but this age 12 consent applies to a 42 year old just as much as any other person.... god, I missed some stuff... Sexual Assault against a Child in the Second Degree is 16. Washington Statues 948.02(2) With the same no-exceptions.
This is only a Class C felony instead of a Class B. So, if you're 15 and your partner is 15, both of you are felons.
He said that teaching anyone under 16 about condoms is legally contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Showing a fifteen year old how to use a condom does not equal having sex with a person under twelve.
Wisconsin state law used to be 16. Again, with the same no-exception language that it now has for 12. Thus, explaining to a kid under 16 how to properly use a condom is effectively telling the 16 year old "ok, when you're breaking the law, make sure to use a condom."
If the children are under age 12, then yes, it will lead directly to more statutory rape, because Wisconsin law holds that anyone having sex with a person under the age of 12 is committing statutory rape, regardless of their age.
So? Teaching drivers ed will lead to more driving and thus more crashing, thus drivers ed teachers are murders? I'm unclear how you could prosecute for one and not the other. Also, the DA said under 16, not 12 was the level where he thought it broke the law, so your comment is irrelevant to his logic, if he used any logic at all.
Teenagers are allowed to legally drive. In Wisconsin, they are not legally able to have sex.
The DA said 16, because the law used to be 16, with the same no-exception policy (ageofconsent.com still posts that the age is 16, I used the webpage to locate the proper statue and verify the new information)... now it's 12. Even lawyers can have difficulty keeping up with the way laws are changing.
I'm pretty sure it is illegal for 11 year old Cheesers to intentionally injure each other as well. Could scissor safety, conflict resolution and whatnot also be construed as promoting assault against one another?
At what age can kids be taught gun safety?
I'm not (just) being a smart ass. Safety education and promotion are things people are very capable of distinguishing from one another, except, apparently, when when the topic becomes sex of drugs, when suddenly lying becomes not just appropriate, but apparently a legal imperative.
Teaching kids scissor safety specifically includes abstinence-only-type education not to injure each other.
Gun safety is oddly enough, not as illegal as teaching sex safety, because a 10-year old can shoot a firearm in designated areas, while a 10-year old in Wisconsin cannot legally have sex with anyone.
I'm really not against the sex-ed here, just rather pointing out that the DA has a good point that the statutory rape laws as they stand in Wisconsin live in a la-la land where kids under a certain age are automatically victims and violators.
Slashdot Mirror
From the originally linked article:
Blum said the boys continue to live with Stagnitto and their mother, his fiancé, in Brockport.
So, apparently the children's mother is a guy?
What about these claims are not possible?
If I claim your pet invisible purple unicorn witch put a hex on me and that gave me genital warts, should I be allowed to sue you for damages?
The defendant is able to make a motion requiring plaintiff to produce any evidence that they have, and have the judge rule on if that evidence is compelling at all.
This isn't a common motion, because often times the person making the claim has consulted with a lawyer, and the lawyer knows how to put things to indicate that they have evidence.
However if you go into court and make a claim of an invisible purple unicorn giving you genital warts, then you're very likely going to get smacked down in court with a motion to dismiss.
That Supreme Court decisions are guessed within a vote or two almost every time because the judges base everything not on the law, but on their personal opinion then use the law as an excuse to push their personal beliefs.
You're wrong.
It has been used as a get out of jail free card. And legal opinions are facts.
Citation needed. Yes legal opinions are "facts", but prosecutors do not issue factual statements saying that they will not prosecute a crime. They state that they decline prosecution at this time, however the acts make be entirely illegal.
Do you really want to learn anything about law in this discussion or do you just want to remain an ignorant about this shit?
That's an interesting point, but a traffic ticket generally isn't regarded as a criminal offense (except I guess DUI stuff, but that's a whole 'nother league) and there is no incentive to keep yourself out of a holding cell until your court date.
If you are arrested for anything else under the sun you are not REQUIRED to pay anything just to get the case to court. If you want your ticket to go before a judge for any reason you are required to pay the state money, up front, that they will be slow in returning (if they ever do). If you go to court for any other reason that is NOT a flagrant revenue grab by the state, standing before a judge is free.
It may be legal with enough lawyerific wrangling, but it's still not kosher, right, or even vaguely legitimate.
In order to file a small-claims court suit in Washington state, one must pay $25 up front before it will be filed. Any other civil court suit requires a payment of about $200 in court costs.
You are actually required to pay court costs up front for nearly everything. Certain things do not require paying court costs, for instance, civil protection orders where violence or stalking has occurred.
In fact, you're kind of lucky that the court costs to contest a ticket are even refunded to you. In some states, even if you win, you still have to pay some court costs.
Thats common enough that there's even a legal definition for it. Estoppel. If the people charged with deciding whether or not it's legal say it is legal, then it *is* legal, even if someone changes their mind later (from that point on you can be charged, but not while holding the estoppel "get out of jail free" card).
... you're wrong. Estoppel stops people from changing facts... it cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for preventing prosecution.
Prosecutorial discretion is not governed by estoppel, because (1) the decisions are made upon each individual case, so just because a prosecutor declines to prosecute in one case, does not mean that he must decline to prosecute a different case with similar facts. (2) just because a prosecutor declines to prosecute, he does not make any statements of fact as to if something is legal or not. In fact, a prosecutor can make every assertion that something is illegal, but he is simply unable to prosecute due to for instance, lack of evidence.
While laws are provided to state that giving alcohol to children is explicitly illegal, that does not mean that one could not be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The reason why it is separately stated, is because giving alcohol to a minor is a more specifically "heinous" crime, and thus treated with a larger fine, or longer jail time.
Drug paraphernalia was made illegal in order to be able to convict drug addicts of something even if they no longer have actual drugs on themselves. Drug paraphernalia used to be simply evidence of drug use... then they turned it into something illegal itself.
The "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" is a specific catch all that holds that if you are a contributing factor in that child breaking the law, then you are at fault yourself. In fact, giving children alcohol is typically charged with not only providing alcohol to children, but with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
You're showing a profound lack of understand of the law in this case. The DA is directly stating that any teacher who materially contributes to a child of age 16 or under having sex could be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. AND HE IS MAKING A VALID LEGAL ARGUMENT.
Anyone standing up for that law will naturally sounds like a twit.
Which does make him a twit. Especially since he's the DA and if he says it's legal, it is. If the person prosecuting the crimes refuses to prosecute, it's legal. That's the point of checks and balances.
No, it does not make him a twit. Sometimes, when something quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's just a guy who was forced to wear a duck outfit.
Also, declining prosecution it does not make it legal. What you're describing is prosecutorial discretion. It does not make something "legal", and in fact, if another DA comes in within the statute of limitations, that new DA can choose to file charges.
Prosecutorial discretion very explicitly does not validate or legalize any particular action, because it prevents the possibility of someone using the fact that someone else (or even the same person) from claiming that because someone else wasn't tried for something that they shouldn't be tried.
Good luck getting to court and arguing "but the previous DA told me that giving this 15-year old a condom was going to be ok." It may have been ok with him, but is is still not legal.
You're free to disagree... but this Wisconsin DA is a lawyer... are you?
Nope. Are you? I'm well versed in logic, and there's none that stands up for making safety training illegal, no matter whether the act is legal or illegal in itself.
No, I am not a lawyer, but I am well-versed in logic, and I have actually read law to some degree. And I guarantee you that this DA is also well-versed in logic, potentially to a greater degree than you are.
What I stand up for is ensuring that the safety training actually legal, and not improvising some hack job that the next DA, or the DA in the next county over, can turn around and invalidate.
You're failing at very basic root cause analysis here. You're presuming that the problem here is the DA, when it is the LAW ITSELF that is the problem.
I do not disagree in anyway that this safety training should be legal, however one cannot simply say that is good enough.
I can see a perfectly reasonably legal argument according to Wisconsin Statutes, that if you hand a condom to a 15-year old that it would be encouraging that person to violate the law, and a more severe law in fact even than handing them a drink of alcohol.
Laws requiring absolute abstinence of individuals who have already reached sexual maturity are wrong.
Let's look at an except from the actual letter describing his legal argument:
If a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child -- or even where the 'natural and probable consequences' of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child -- that teacher can be charged under this statute" of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
His argument is RIGHT ON here. THIS IS WHAT WISCONSIN LAW SAYS. Just because he wants to enforce the law, and you disagree with him does not change the fact that WHAT HE IS SAYING IS A VALID LOGICAL LEGAL ARGUMENT.
If a teacher knows a child age 16 or under is having sex, then that child is, by definition of Wisconsin state law, a victim of sexual assault, and teachers are bound by law to report such sexual assault to authorities regardless of the age of their partner.
Like it or not, agree with its morality or not giving children age 16-and-under condoms in Wisconsin is just as irresponsible as giving them alcohol.
I do not believe that marijuana should be illegal, but that does not mean that I do not risk arrest by growing it or using it. Having medical marijuana still does not make it legal, because it is federal law that makes marijuana illegal.
The purpose of the photograph isn't to prove you ran a red light. The motion sensors, and in some cases underground magnetometers, can detect if your car enters the intersection on a red. The only purpose of the photograph is to record your license plate so they know who to send the ticket to. The photograph is one, but not the only, piece of evidence.
I would be pleasantly surprised if any city/county/state were to actually produce such evidence to a court to back up a red-light camera picture.
...snip.. (frankly, highly illegal) practice of my state demanding court costs up front if you take the ticket to court, to be refunded if you win. I'm fairly sure that violates the innocent-before-proven-guilty clause in both state and federal constitutions.
The more I learn about the law, the more I learn why it is important to talk to a lawyer in many situations.
What they're demanding here is a "bond", which is entirely legal, and not in any way a violation of state or federal constitutions. There is no presumption that you are guilty, there is merely a requirement that court costs be paid up front.
This is no different than placing bonds on defendants, which are refunded in the event that the defendant does show up in court.
you forgot to add, "after thinking about it, an emergency stop probably would have stopped me before the intersection, but the driver behind me looked close enough that he would have rear ended me had i attempted that."
If you cannot safely perform an emergency stop at any time, then you are travelling too fast. If the car behind you is likely to rear end you if you perform an emergency stop at your current speed, then you slow down.
It's called defensive driving.
The stopping distance of a vehicle is a function of friction, speed, and mass.
Actually, vehicle performance has very little to do with friction. Traction is a reasonably different concept from friction, and if you're using exclusively friction of the tires to the road to stop your car, then you're locking up your tires.
Traction levels of tires depend upon material, and adhesiveness as well as friction coefficients. Large jumbo jet tires are made of almost entirely natural rubber because it has some of the best adhesiveness of any rubber. The performance of a racing car can change significantly with softer, more-adhesive tires.
Worse so is that a yield sign sets up an automatic presumption of guilt to the person with it in the event of an accident.
Unless one can show that the other person did something entirely unpredictable with intent to cause an accident, if you have a yield sign, you're at fault... the sign told you that you have to yield to all other traffic.
I have been in that situation many times. Specifically, I'm turning left, and there's no left-turn arrow, so when green comes up, I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into.
In New Mexico State Law, this is expressly permitted. One is allowed to enter an intersection without left-turn signal with intent to make a left-hand turn, and actually perform the turn even if the light turns red before completing it. But only one car is allowed to perform this maneuver per cycle.
This is different than "running a red light", as you are given explicit license to make that turn.
red light cameras merely result in more rear-end collisions as people slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket.
Citation needed.
While I'm perfectly aware that reality does not fit with legal theory, stating that one is unable to stop when they should because of a fear of rear-end collisions is nonsense, and smacks of driver irresponsibility.
Defensive driving is the responsibility of every driver. If you're afraid that you would be unable to perform an emergency stop without being rear-ended, then you need to slow down, until you're going a speed safe enough that you can stop for both you, and the person behind you.
It's awesome that car safety has gotten to the point that we care more about who is at fault for an accident than actually being in one, but defensive driving cannot simply be left to languish.
It's more that they have learned to rationalize away the dissonance and since that's the only time they ever think hard, they unwittingly condition themselves into being thinking-averse. This is why apologists actually get angry when you try to debate them and why they tend to be hostile towards education.
I tried to say it better, but you win. :)
Non sequitur. The issue is teaching them how to use them, not whether they are provided. Teaching someone what a condom is and how to use it isn't the same as giving the keys to a car to an under age person.
You're free to disagree... but this Wisconsin DA is a lawyer... are you?
Oh, except that the having of sex is a felony for the under 16-year-old, rather than just a moving violation.
So? Either it's a violation of the law, or it's not.
Felonies, are worse than misdemeanors, are worse than traffic violations.
So, let me put this in perspective... a 16 year old having sex with anyone makes their partner a felon between second-degree reckless homicide (Class D), and second-degree intentional homicide (Class B). Even if that person is a child who is 13...
So, again. Summary: Wisconsin law is stupid draconian. Anyone standing up for that law will naturally sounds like a twit.
One is not allowed to begin instruction into driving until a person is old enough to get a learner's permit.
One can be legally (privately) taught at any age and can get training behind the wheel on private property and can begin formal instruction when a permit is legal but a license is not. From the statements in this, a parent teaching a child privately would still be illegal, when the same with driving wouldn't be.
Well, go complain about the zero tolerance age 16 abstinence-only law. The DA is still not the twit in this story... the abstinence-only law making it illegal to have sex at all before 16, is the problem.
Whatever one's argument about if schools should supply condoms or not, it is undeniable that a school in Wisconsin providing condoms in any way to a person under the age of 16 is equivalent to allowing that person to drive prior to having a license...
Oh, except that the having of sex is a felony for the under 16-year-old, rather than just a moving violation.
At the end of the day, thinking for them is more about ego-defense than actual synthesis.
You're describing Apologetics, right?
You know, this idea explains a lot why American society is so prone to "cognitive dissonance". People refuse to recognize hypocritical beliefs on their part, simply because they fail to actually produce their own synthesis of their own thoughts. They're perfectly fine mapping out completely opposing beliefs given the argument at hand.
One is not allowed to begin instruction into driving until a person is old enough to get a learner's permit.
So, we only provide driving lessons to children once they can start legally driving. The DA is arguing that we can't teach children sex until they can start legally having sex.
I totally agree that this is STUPID... but the laws make anything but abstinence before 16 a crime.
Am I missing something in your argument?
He said that teaching anyone under 16 about condoms is legally contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Showing a fifteen year old how to use a condom does not equal having sex with a person under twelve.
Wisconsin state law used to be 16. Again, with the same no-exception language that it now has for 12. Thus, explaining to a kid under 16 how to properly use a condom is effectively telling the 16 year old "ok, when you're breaking the law, make sure to use a condom."
Granted the age is now 12.
Correction, Wisconsin state law is at 16. Same no-exception policy.
Thus, with two 15 year olds having sex, they are both felons.
Teenagers are allowed to legally drive. In Wisconsin, they are not legally able to have sex.
The DA said 16, because the law used to be 16, with the same no-exception policy (ageofconsent.com still posts that the age is 16, I used the webpage to locate the proper statue and verify the new information)... now it's 12. Even lawyers can have difficulty keeping up with the way laws are changing.
Correction to this. DA is correct. Per Wisconsin Statute 948.02 (2) Sexual Assault of a Child in the Second Degree is at age 16.
Two 15 year olds having sex would both be felons.
while a 10-year old in Wisconsin cannot legally have sex with anyone.
Correction to this. Per Wisconsin Statute 948.02 (2), the age of consent is 16. If they're younger than 12, then it's a Class B felony, if they're younger than 16, then it's a Class C felony.
So, again. Two 15 year olds have sex, and they're both felons.
State law provides that anyone having sex with a person under 12 is guilty of a Class B Felony. He's literally not making this shit up... the laws are just that backwards in Wisconsin.
Yeah, you're right, it's pretty messed up to make 12 the age of consent. I always thought 18 was too high, but dropping it down to 12 is fucking ridiculous.
Yes, but this age 12 consent applies to a 42 year old just as much as any other person. ... god, I missed some stuff... Sexual Assault against a Child in the Second Degree is 16. Washington Statues 948.02(2) With the same no-exceptions.
This is only a Class C felony instead of a Class B. So, if you're 15 and your partner is 15, both of you are felons.
Am I missing something in your argument?
He said that teaching anyone under 16 about condoms is legally contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Showing a fifteen year old how to use a condom does not equal having sex with a person under twelve.
Wisconsin state law used to be 16. Again, with the same no-exception language that it now has for 12. Thus, explaining to a kid under 16 how to properly use a condom is effectively telling the 16 year old "ok, when you're breaking the law, make sure to use a condom."
Granted the age is now 12.
If the children are under age 12, then yes, it will lead directly to more statutory rape, because Wisconsin law holds that anyone having sex with a person under the age of 12 is committing statutory rape, regardless of their age.
So? Teaching drivers ed will lead to more driving and thus more crashing, thus drivers ed teachers are murders? I'm unclear how you could prosecute for one and not the other. Also, the DA said under 16, not 12 was the level where he thought it broke the law, so your comment is irrelevant to his logic, if he used any logic at all.
Teenagers are allowed to legally drive. In Wisconsin, they are not legally able to have sex.
The DA said 16, because the law used to be 16, with the same no-exception policy (ageofconsent.com still posts that the age is 16, I used the webpage to locate the proper statue and verify the new information)... now it's 12. Even lawyers can have difficulty keeping up with the way laws are changing.
I'm pretty sure it is illegal for 11 year old Cheesers to intentionally injure each other as well. Could scissor safety, conflict resolution and whatnot also be construed as promoting assault against one another?
At what age can kids be taught gun safety?
I'm not (just) being a smart ass. Safety education and promotion are things people are very capable of distinguishing from one another, except, apparently, when when the topic becomes sex of drugs, when suddenly lying becomes not just appropriate, but apparently a legal imperative.
Teaching kids scissor safety specifically includes abstinence-only-type education not to injure each other.
Gun safety is oddly enough, not as illegal as teaching sex safety, because a 10-year old can shoot a firearm in designated areas, while a 10-year old in Wisconsin cannot legally have sex with anyone.
I'm really not against the sex-ed here, just rather pointing out that the DA has a good point that the statutory rape laws as they stand in Wisconsin live in a la-la land where kids under a certain age are automatically victims and violators.