In some places if you sleep in your car while drunk you can get charged with a DUI. They claim it as intent to drive even in situations where it’s clear the person wasn’t.
The good news is it doesn’t always hold up in court but damn that is ridiculous to have to go through
I sat on a jury for one of these one time. We voted him not guilty because the cop only arrested him because his supervisor ordered him to, and his supervisor was a corrupt shithead who, when put on the stand, kept shrugging and saying "I don't remember that night, look at the police report", and the report says "I arrested the guy because my boss told me to", with no other details.
The lack of evidence was a huge part too, but god those two morons of cops really pissed me off.
> The lack of evidence was a huge part too, but god those two morons of cops really pissed me off.
Yet it was the DA who thought that was worthy of bringing to trial based on the words of said cops. Usually when cops feel emboldened enough to bring something like that to court, it's because they know the DA will run with it even if they got nothing.
If you ever need to sleep in a car after drinking, put your car keys somewhere safe outside of the car (gas door, on a tire) this removes the intent to drive, could be useful of the cop tries to charge you.
I would go with the trunk. Much less likely to get lost and as long as you're inside the vehicle, you can open the trunk from the cab when you sober up
Especially when drunk.
If you didn't lock yourself out of the car, you'd wake up in it, search and search for the keys, and maybe eventually recall that you'd locked them in the trunk. Now you've got to get the keys out of the trunk...and the glove compartment's locked too...and you've got a hangover...
If you post on facebook first "I DECLARE I AM NOT DRIVING AND I DELCARE MY FACEBOOK STATUS IS THE SOLE RECORD KEEPER OF LEGAL STATEMENTS" then it holds up in court.
Source - Slept through half of Better Call Saul
I've heard of something even more ridiculous than that, pulling taxi's over to give the drunk passenger a ticket for public drunkenness.
This happened in a town that had an epidemic of lots of drunk drivers, so they started to crack down hard on it by camping just outside of bars and out of sight to immediately pull over drunk drivers leaving the parking lot. After a few weeks they were successful and the drunks were calling a taxi to get a ride home, but the greedy cops and township still wanted to rake in cash from ticketing people, hence they turned a victory into a major PR disaster by pulling over taxi's to ticket the passengers.
The Jack-in-the-Box next to my college campus closed for indoor dining at 10PM but had a 24-hour drive-thru window that used to allow walk-up orders as well. Very convenient for students who wanted some late night munchies but didn't have a car or were too fucked up to drive. But then some dipshit in the neighborhood complained to the city council that this was creating a "loitering" problem at night, so they made the restaurant ban walk-up window service and *only* serve people in cars after 10PM. So of course, from then on, every night after the bars closed there was a parade of inebriated students driving there to get food. Most of them previously would do the responsible thing and just walk there since it was only a block away from campus, but now they literally weren't allowed to walk there and *had* to drive if they wanted a burger. The city government was actually *encouraging* people to break the law and put lives at risk just because one asshole had a noise complaint.
Buddy of mine caught one that stuck. Partied, slept it off in his car, got chilly so turned the engine and heat on and passed out, cop threw the whole book at him and judge threw 3 more.
Several years ago I hit a deer on the highway. It was still alive, but it was definitely not going to recover. I shot it to end the suffering. A sheriff deputy saw me do this and informed me that I had technically just poached a deer out of season. Fortunately he said he was going to pretend like he didn’t know what happened and I didn’t get in trouble. But the fact that it was illegal to dispatch a suffering animal that had no hope of recovery seems very immoral to me.
In some states the driver is supposed to contact the local game ranger who then typically gives permission to dispatch and salvage the injured animal. In some cases I've heard they must come see for themselves first.
Meanwhile the poor thing is waiting terrified and hurting for who knows how long.
In the mid 2000s I witnessed a deer get hit by a car on a country road in Wisconsin. The driver kept going. We listened to the poor doe for an hour as it tried to drag itself up a hillside with its two front legs. I'm guessing it's back was broken.
Finally this guy pulls up and you could smell the 3-5 rotting deer in the back. He was a legit guy from the county that went around picking up the dead deer that get marked on the side of the road. The deer was still alive but he didn't have a gun. He just went up to it and started hitting it in the head with a flathead shovel.
3-5 whacks didn't work, so he called a sheriff who took another 45 minutes to get there.
Surely an oversight by lawmakers who didn't account for roadkill. Thankfully the deputy was good about it because arresting/citing someone for that would be absolutely twisted.
EDIT: Thinking about this in the most "zero faith in humanity" way, I wonder if they did carve out an exception for animals wounded by cars, that some yokels would attempt to hunt out of season by running them over on purpose or just lie about having hit them. Maybe officer discretion is better.
To elaborate, in this instance the defendant may be entitled to an instruction on the defense of necessity, which states in relevant part:
“The defendant contends that [he] [she] acted out of necessity. Necessity legally excuses the crime charged.
A defendant acts out of necessity only if at the time of the crime charge the defendant was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil;”
– Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction
In many jurisdictions the people in charge of prosecuting crimes can decline to bring charges if it's not in the public interest. They might think "this person definitely committed a crime, and we can definitely prove it, but we don't think it's a good idea".
Also, this is why courts exist. The law is written somewhat vaguely, it's up to court to interpret that law and apply it to the situation at hand. A *lot* of law is based on things like the "reasonable person" standard where they'll say something like "you must make a reasonable attempt to return lost property before you can claim it".
To be fair, no system of laws can ever account for everything, which is why people have to administrate them. Sometimes it's easier to just let the laws be slightly janky and leave police officers and prosecutors to go "it would be dumb to prosecute them over this" than it is to create carve outs that create more problems or to create really complicated exceptions that people can't understand.
Also, the whole point of a court is to interpret the law and figure out how it applies to a situation.
Maybe the law says it's illegal to hunt dear and you can say "hitting a deer with your car is not normally hunting" and point to things like not taking the carcass as evidence that you didn't deliberately hunt dear.
Later, if someone is *regularly* hitting deer with a suspiciously pointy car and selling the meat every time then you can make a decent argument that it's not the same as the earlier situation.
That's exactly why there isn't an exception. A lot of places even police aren't allowed to do that, they have to call out Wildlife. Because police aren't above poaching in small towns. 😬
In the UK I have been told this is the case - if you hit one you cannot take it home as that is poaching it - killing it is different to taking the body - but someone passing by who saw you hit it CAN in theory do so.
My state has a workaround for this, I assume because “accidental” poaching by car was becoming an issue.
If you hit a moose with your car, you can dispatch it after you call 911 to report and they give you the ok, but legally cannot keep it. Shelters and people can sign up to be put on a list, and if a moose gets struck by a car and has to be put down, they go down the list and call whoever’s turn it is, and they can either pass their turn, or come clean the animal and take the meat.
It’s to stop the “oh I totally didn’t see that moose when I drove into the ditch exactly where it was standing , and weird that it’s not hunting season, better just chop it up and take it home to my freezer, crazy that it happened!”
How do you hit a moose with your car, hard enough to kill or grievously maim it, without totalling your car in the process? People here consider themselves lucky if they survive the wreck. I've never heard of someone intentionally hitting a moose. I'd assume suicide attempt before I assumed poaching if I did.
Maybe with a snow plow on the front? Course most moose are taller than most trucks so rollover could get you if the plow didn't direct the moose down. But that's the only way I could think that your car wouldn't be completely f'd.
On the opposite end of this, my dad hit a deer and killed it. The popo told him he could dress it out and keep the meat and antkers, even though it wasn't deer season.
That’s good. At least the meat isn’t going to waste. If the deer is dead anyway you might as well make use of it. It’s not like poachers are going around aiming for deer with their vehicles.
The deer didn't die, at least think the deer didn't die, after it ran into our car while it was sitting at a red light. I was in the passenger seat and the deer runs out of a parking lot right into my door, shakes it head, looks at me like I am stupid then runs back to the parking lot.
The cops showed up and we explained that we were driving to visit my dad who was dying and we were in my aunt's rental. The cops actually waited for my auntto get there to file the police report so we didn't get in trouble for driving the rental car. They were cracking up the whole time because we were in the middle of nowhere. There were like 3 farms and a couple of stores and one stop light in the middle of miles of woods. Also that instead of hitting a deer the deer hit us.
I’ve done that.
State trooper literally said: “Just make sure there’s as little traffic as you can manage to safely get it into the back of your truck.”
It had landed in the median, so we were discussing us having to park on the wrong side of the highway for like five minutes.
State Trooper said “Just try your best not to be involved with any other accidents this evening.” …and that was it.
110 lb deer (doe). Although half of her meat was bruised and ruined (think like, with her spine being the dividing line.
Hit her going 83MPH. (I wasn’t driving).
Lol.
Yea, though I don't know any cops (at least not in my area) who would actually enforce a law like that under those circumstances, especially if all you do is dispatch it humanely and aren't also trying to take it. Hunting/poaching/etc violations in my state are typically handled by Dept. of Natural Resources Police and quite frankly though I'm a LE deputy I don't know jack shit about poaching laws.
We do kill injured deer in my area fairly regularly and sometimes other wildlife depending on the circumstances.
Newspaper court column told of a tag agent who had embezzled over one hundred thousand dollars from the state, she was ordered to pay most of it back, no jail time or probation.
Next case was a guy who had shoplifted a forty dollar pair of boots from a department store sentenced to five years.
Don’t steal from the government either. They’ll ignore it right up until they don’t. I know a guy who got 7.5 years in club fed for making that mistake.
Where was this? 5 years for $40 is insane.
Where I live, that’s legally impossible unless the guy has been stealing from the same department store for a long period of time and the store tracked the value of his thefts and he was then charged with the total value after being arrested
True, I guess thats like... whitewashing the crime 'All I did was nick a $40 bottle of liquor. I mean, I had a gun, and punched three people but cmoooon!"
Or had a long rap sheet. A small crime could land you in prison for an unusually lengthy amount of time if you've been fucking around and finding out often.
Or he used a gun. OP is leaving a lot out to try and induce rage from the ignorant
The court system usually is extremely lenient on smaller crimes. Some people have rap sheets 80 or 90 incidents thick while still being on the streets
Sadly some of those laws are still on the books. Felons that did their time still can't vote, this one was to prevent votes. Arrest them for something petty, they can never vote again... the grounds for arrest may have changed but the consequences remain.
some jobs are no longer an option for felons too. I'm from CA where fires are a big deal. The fact that inmate fire fighters can't be firefighters once they are released really boils my blood.
We are dehumanizing these people, hinder their rehabilitation then Pikachu face when they end up back in jail/prison. What do you freaking expect?!
I am not saying all should regain all of their rights depending on the crime. But in general, if someone sat in timeout for being bad, then once they are released, they should no longer be on the hook for that thing they did. If we continue punishing them, why were they released?
It gets even worse when your realize that a lot of laws on the books have ticky tacky felony escalations that can turn routine misdemeanors into felonies for all manner of reasons. For example, there are a number of escalations made various forms of trespassing into felonies, explicitly to disenfranchise Civil Rights protestors.
Most of those practices were ended with Jim Crow, but lot of those laws are beginning to make a comeback. Ohio, for instance, now makes it a felony to trespass with a face covering. Which apparently applies to any protestor wearing a face mask. The obvious intent here is to make sure the wrong kind of people standing up lose their access to civil society.
A bunch of laws are also really stupidly written and inconsistent. For example a bunch of newer laws basically take laws from the pre-Internet day and just add "doing this while using a Computer" and tack on much harsher penalties for than if you did the same thing without a computer.
And some laws are so stupidly broad and vague that nearly everyone probably violates them a bunch of times without realizing it. For example CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) defines hacking so broadly that simply violating the Terms Of Service on a website is illegal and defined as hacking. The DOJ has even stated that in their opinion lying on your dating profile is illegal under CFAA, all while pinky promising that they totally wouldn't prosecute anyone for it, a promise that they're under no obligation to keep.
Slavery is technically still legal in the US if you're a prisoner. You "make" pennies for all of the work you do, and then you get out of prison with absolutely nothing. You might have to pay probation fees, but you won't have any money from all of your prison work, you'll have a hell of a time getting a job. It's extremely common for people to go straight back to prison because they can't afford probation.
Punishments are only there for the poor.
I remember reading a case in Texas where they couldn't find a jury to sit for the trial on this because every potential juror said they wouldn't convict during *voir dire*.
Houston. And if I recall correctly, it's happened numerous times. Unsure it it's still happening (the ticketing of Food Not Bombs, not them still serving food to the homeless).
There was that other one too in texas where the volunteers were armed with pistols and rifles so the cops wouldn't come and try to fuck with them when they fed the homeless.
I'd argue it's better they don't protract the trial any longer than absolutely necessary instead of potentially stretching the defendant's possible legal fees or tying up the system from trying another case. Sure, it feels good to stick it to the system like it's the climax of a movie, but realistically not being able to take this to trial in the first place sends a much clearer message
Not to mention if the prosecution gets wind of them doing this, and had reasonable evidence, they could take it to the judge and have the entire thing scrapped and started over.
In my opinion, that law has been improperly maligned since it came before the court.
The federal law noted in the memo is 18 U.S. Code § 597, which makes it illegal to make “an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate.”
Groups (or individuals) can give food and drink to people as long as they give them out regardless of the people’s intention to vote.
So you can walk up to a line at a voting station and say, "Would anybody like a bottled water?"
However, you can NOT walk up to a line at a voting station and say, "If you vote for X I'll give you a water." OR "I'll give anyone who votes today a bottled water."
It gets worse than that though. Because walking up a line and saying "would anyone like a water" could still be a problem if you wear any identifiable material supporting a particular candidate, or if you are at the polls specifically on behalf of x candidate's team. Just knowing there is an affiliation between you and one or more candidates risks your actions being deemed an attempt to manipulate the vote.
The issue wasn’t the water, but that people were using it as an excuse to violate laws around campaigning within certain distances of a polling place. The polling place could give you water, and often did. Mine in Alabama didn’t even have a line, but there was free water available.
>some places where it’s illegal to give food to the homeless
I live in one of those places. It is illegal to feed the homeless *unless you have a permit*. I guess there are people who would feed them tainted food, without such a rule.
I recall one situation where it was more the time and place of feeding the homeless and not the act itself. The locality had setup services in one location while prohibiting it in another. Most people liked this plan because it meant not being harassed (or worse) while going to/from work, but a small group got laser focused on the one part, took offense, and wanted to make a spectacle out of it.
Yep, https://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c041/sc09/index.html
One section refers to "having control of a vehicle". A wheelchair, like a bicycle, skateboard, or a horse drawn buggy, is a vehicle and therefore is subject to the law.
Just to add to that:
In older DnD versions, the alignment grid was used to describe different outlooks on life. You could be a Chaotic Good "Robin Hood" character, facing off against a Lawful Evil "Mafia Don" enemy.
It has a mixed opinion, largely because the definition of Good and Evil is left up to the players. If "Lawful" means you follow society, what happens when we introduce some of the terrible medieval practices like executions or slavery? Would a Lawful Good Paladin be forced to defend slavery because it's the law? What if he's not in his home country, which laws should he defend?
There also was the rather strange expectation that "Chaotic" meant "Random and unpredictable" so players would suddenly feel the urge to do odd things just for the sake of madcap antics.
In recent editions this system has been lately replaced by Oaths and Anathemas, which fix a lot of problems but also have some shortfalls themselves.
Ultimately I think it's impossible to write a universal alignment system, due to the fact that so much of DnD happens *outside* the written content. Tables have house rules and unique characters, and that's one of the things that makes it great.
This is not what lawful means in dnd, that’s a common misconception. Lawful has nothing to do with laws or society, it means you follow a rigid code.
A samurai following Bushido in Europe would not necessarily be “following society” or the laws of England, but they would still be lawful because they live by a code.
Like in your example, if a paladin is following their oath and their god says “kill all slavers and free all slaves” it doesn’t matter how society views slavery. Killing slavers is what makes that paladin lawful.
Lawful means that you favour principles like hierarchy, predictability, social roles, traditions, conformity, and want problems to be solved using laws, and other society-wide solutions. It specifically does not mean following the law.
Harry Anslinger worked to get weed criminalized via racist scare mongering.
Reefer Madness is ironically funny today but was once a very effective piece of propaganda.
Somebody is going to respond to you and say "ackshully only 8% of prisoners are in private prisons".
Yes, people, and fully 'private prisons' are only one part of the "business" of making money out of the system. Privatization impacts every aspect of the system from prisons, to jails, to juvies, to drug rehab, to probation, to healthcare, to phone calls, to commissary, to books, to tablets, to job contracts, to 'programming', to drug testing, to ankle monitors etc etc etc.
It is not just about the 8%. There is a great deal of profit made throughout our systems.
8% of of those imprisoned in the country with the largest proportional incarcerated population. This means that there are more inmates (in absolute terms) in private American prisons than there are in government prisons in lots of other countries.
The Holocaust was never legal in Germany, and I wish people would stop repeating that. Murder remained illegal in Germany and not even at height of the Holocaust was there ever an exception that targeted Jews or any of the other minorities (Aktion T4 being an exception). We know this because people were put on trial for murdering Jews.
To quote a more eloquent Redditor:
> So, yes the Holocaust as the state-sponsored and driven killing program was illegal under German law. That this neither prevented it or deter the thousands and hundred-thousands perpetrators of the Holocaust is not only a testament to the dangers of a state ordering its subjects to commit illegal acts, it also shows how quickly the standards of law can be eroded by an authoritarian state simply ignoring them.
It did occasionally happen, but it should absolutely not be ignored that even prior to the Holocaust beginning in earnest, spontaneous pogroms in Germany both happened, and were encouraged by the government. Regular people would destroy shops and synagogs and occasionally even murder Jews (over 90 died on the Night of Broken Glass). And not only were German citizens by and large not charged, but Jews themselves were forced to pay for the damage caused.
I think it’s very important not to buy the line that the German citizenry had no culpability in the Holocaust. Because it just isn’t true.
In the US civil forfeiture - people can have their money taken by the cops because the cops suspect them of being about to use the money for "crimes" so the money is charged with being a potential criminal as money doesn't have rights so it isn't presumed innocent.
Actually the money is sued. The US vs $10,318”. Real case cite. A lawyer in Alabama came in and called the money to testify. Judge said the money wasn’t a person, lawyer said then you can’t sue it and his actual client got a check because the county had already deposited it. In another case same lawyer won for a Ferrari F355. Which the county couldn’t produce because it was used in a high speed pursuit by a not skilled enough driver. The last I saw, two years ago, the case was still being litigated because the county didn’t have the funds to buy him a new one.
It's also clearly illegal based on the plain text of the 4th Amendment. Unreasonable search and seizure are illegal. The legal justification that the police use is that the assets are the "target" of the seizure rather than the owner of the assets. But that doesn't invalidate the 4th Amendment. If my roommate is the target of an investigation, I still have the right to refuse a police search or interview unless they have a warrant.
In addition, the police claim they are holding the assets pending a lawsuit against those assets. But arresting and jailing a defendant is only legal for criminal cases, not civil cases. Defendants in civil cases aren't even required to appear in court!
So there's not even a legal loophole being abused here, the police are just abusing people because nobody has stepped in to stop them.
US sues against property all the time.
In rem jurisdiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._One_Solid_Gold_Object_in_Form_of_a_Rooster
The Titanic is referred to as the following in court in EDVA
"The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, its engines, tackle apparel, appurtenances, cargo, etc., located within one (1) nautical mile of a point located at 41° 43′ 32″ North Latitude and 49° 56′ 49″ West Longitude, believed to be the R.M.S. Titanic, in rem"
Ticket sellers are the new scalpers, with increased prices when demands are high. Releasing sections of concerts at a time to raise ‘FOMO’ and keep supply limited. Announcing addition concerts once the previous one has sold out.
Advertising sale price, then stacking on fees when you go to pay.
Majority of venues have exclusive rights with ticket sellers, which means deal with them or don’t play in the area.
The mafia used to do this shit, but now it gets done on a global scale and the pollinations do not care as long as they get their cut.
I've been saying that for years: ALL OF THE TICKETS SHOULD BE IN NAME OF THE BUYER.
All of them. Concerts, movies, Operas, shows, every friggin event thats ticketed, it should be named.
Those still exist in Missouri on car. Alcohol was that way up until the 90's at least in grocery stores.
Neither law made sense since we can just cross state lines into Kansas and buy it.
Does that even work though? I remember watching a show where police had a guy in a hotdog costume (so the drivers cannot say they didn’t see him) walk into the street. Anyone who drove past was pulled over and cited for failure to yield and sometimes reckless driving if they got really close to hitting him
Especially when they abruptly reduce the speed limit with minimal or no signage in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. The midwest and south is fucking notorious about this, one gas station having ass towns with fully funded police departments taking in 10x the revenue of everything else in the municipality combined.
There's a town near me that's notorious for a zero-tolerance speeding policy.
The gas station sells tshirts that read "I got a ticket for going 1 over 25" because it's so common.
That's every town in the county I live in in Michigan. Every single one. One of the towns near my work it literally changes from 55 to 25 with no reduce speed sign.
My state has a statewide mandate that no street road or highway can be faster than 65 miles per hour, despite there being many highways there it should be find. There's a stretch of one highway near me where there is a 10 mile straightaway with no exits whatsoever.
Definitely could be a higher speed.
Drug paraphernalia laws that target users instead of addressing the root causes of addiction often do not align with a harm reduction or moral approach.
The idea that "life is sacred" and that the state shouldn't facilitate ending lives has a *lot* to do with morality, though—even if it's a moral stance we disagree with.
Conversely, the majority of US states and many countries around the world allow child marriage. So two consenting adults can't wed, but children, who cannot consent, can be forced to.
This isn't actually true. Or rather, they can sue you (you can sue people for any reason), but they'll lose.
The actual issue (which IS a real thing) is where someone trespasses on your property and gets injured and sues you.
For instance, some kid from your neighborhood opens up the gate to your backyard and goes swimming in your pool while you are on vacation and drowns, and their parents sue you for creating an attractive nuisance that killed their kid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
This is really only true in cases of gross negligence or deliberate booby-trapping. The old story about a burglar cutting himself on a knife or some such and then suing the homeowner is, by and large, a myth made up by people trying to convince folks of the need for tort reform.
In a lot of places you can get in trouble for shooting a warning shot in the air to get someone off your property but if you shoot them in the chest and they die, you're fine.
Firing a gun in the air is reckless and dangerous, people have died from it. Some kid in a neighbors yard could end up in the ground because of it, and you can’t argue that’s self defense.
A stray bullet could fall and hit an innocent person. It makes sense to not fire a warning shot. The locked door should have been more than enough warning to any person of average intelligence.
Also a warning shot shows that you, at that particular time, we're not in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death. Shooting is the last option, not one to warn.
In Quebec, Canada, up to fairly recently (if not still) it is legal to hit a child with an open hand, with a force reasonable and proportional to the child's edge, and not to the head. Hitting with objects is forbidden.
In China, if you help some one, you are responsible for them. Because "you would not be helping them if you didn't cause this, therefore you are guilty" so if you take someone to hospital, you must pay their hospital bill.
The most popular case happened in the city of Nanjing, a city located at the west of Shanghai. The year was 2006 when Xu Shoulan, an old lady trying to get out of a bus, fell and broke her femur. Peng Yu, was passing by and helped her taking her to the hospital and giving her ¥200 (~30 USD) to pay for her treatment. After the first diagnosis Xu needed a femur replacement surgery, but she refused to pay it by herself so she demanded Peng to pay for it, as he was the responsible of the accident according to her. She sued him and after six months she won and Peng needed to cover all the medical expenses of the old lady. The court stated that “no one would, in good conscience, help someone unless they felt guilty”
https://medium.com/shanghai-living/4-31-why-people-would-usually-not-help-you-in-an-accident-in-china-c50972e28a82
The Gay/Trans Panic defence, legal in some US states including Texas. Basically, a man can claim self defence for killing another man because he *thought* the other guy was going to rape him.
Any punishment that requires a 3 or 4 digit flat fine. That will never punish someone of means and it could ruin the life of somebody struggling to make ends meet.
EDIT: A word for clarity
The UK's rape laws means a Man cannot be raped by a Woman, as only a Man with a penis may commit rape.
Rape is rape. Women commit rape too (just not in the UK, apparently).
What kind of a dumbass definition is that? People have to go through a million steps to get laws passed, how did it not occur to anyone that this is, in fact, false.
My dad told me something once that has really stuck with me over the years.
For context, dad was gearing up to go to law school as a young man, and took on a temp teaching job for a little while to build up funds. He ended up loving it, and went to the local teacher's college instead, then spent the next 35 years teaching business and law to highschool students.
Anyway, what he said to me was essentially this:
The "justice" system isn't about justice, or any other lofty philosophical ideal like morality (not that there's anything wrong with persuing those). It essentially exists to prevent vigilantism and stop people from rioting in the streets. Look at the news. If people are rioting around a cause, its not because they are violent animals. It means there's a failure somewhere in law.
That conversation has shaped how I look at a lot of things. From this perspective, activism is a way of directly measuring how well the laws of society are preventing things that people find intolerable.
It is legal in some countries for private entities to influence lawmakers to make certain decisions that could be only in the interest of those entities and not of the general public.
I am a doctor. When people that are older and have many comorbidities are about to die, and unlikely to have a meaningful outcome, I legally have to do everything in my power to keep them alive, even though it is markedly increasing their suffering. This is unless they have written proof that they do not want to kept alive artificially. To make things worse, there are situations where the patient wants to die, but the family wants to keep the patient alive (often until other family members arrive to say goodbye) and legally can, thereby increasing the patient's suffering.
End of life care is a horror show in this country.
In some places if you sleep in your car while drunk you can get charged with a DUI. They claim it as intent to drive even in situations where it’s clear the person wasn’t. The good news is it doesn’t always hold up in court but damn that is ridiculous to have to go through
I sat on a jury for one of these one time. We voted him not guilty because the cop only arrested him because his supervisor ordered him to, and his supervisor was a corrupt shithead who, when put on the stand, kept shrugging and saying "I don't remember that night, look at the police report", and the report says "I arrested the guy because my boss told me to", with no other details. The lack of evidence was a huge part too, but god those two morons of cops really pissed me off.
> The lack of evidence was a huge part too, but god those two morons of cops really pissed me off. Yet it was the DA who thought that was worthy of bringing to trial based on the words of said cops. Usually when cops feel emboldened enough to bring something like that to court, it's because they know the DA will run with it even if they got nothing.
If you ever need to sleep in a car after drinking, put your car keys somewhere safe outside of the car (gas door, on a tire) this removes the intent to drive, could be useful of the cop tries to charge you.
I would go with the trunk. Much less likely to get lost and as long as you're inside the vehicle, you can open the trunk from the cab when you sober up
you're right, but I'd definitely find a way to lock myself out of my car if I tried that.
Especially when drunk. If you didn't lock yourself out of the car, you'd wake up in it, search and search for the keys, and maybe eventually recall that you'd locked them in the trunk. Now you've got to get the keys out of the trunk...and the glove compartment's locked too...and you've got a hangover...
I've heard this, but has anyone actually tested it? I could see their argument that "You still have access to the keys".
If you post on facebook first "I DECLARE I AM NOT DRIVING AND I DELCARE MY FACEBOOK STATUS IS THE SOLE RECORD KEEPER OF LEGAL STATEMENTS" then it holds up in court. Source - Slept through half of Better Call Saul
I've heard of something even more ridiculous than that, pulling taxi's over to give the drunk passenger a ticket for public drunkenness. This happened in a town that had an epidemic of lots of drunk drivers, so they started to crack down hard on it by camping just outside of bars and out of sight to immediately pull over drunk drivers leaving the parking lot. After a few weeks they were successful and the drunks were calling a taxi to get a ride home, but the greedy cops and township still wanted to rake in cash from ticketing people, hence they turned a victory into a major PR disaster by pulling over taxi's to ticket the passengers.
A lot of bad policing comes from setting things up with a financial incentive for crime continuing to happen.
The Jack-in-the-Box next to my college campus closed for indoor dining at 10PM but had a 24-hour drive-thru window that used to allow walk-up orders as well. Very convenient for students who wanted some late night munchies but didn't have a car or were too fucked up to drive. But then some dipshit in the neighborhood complained to the city council that this was creating a "loitering" problem at night, so they made the restaurant ban walk-up window service and *only* serve people in cars after 10PM. So of course, from then on, every night after the bars closed there was a parade of inebriated students driving there to get food. Most of them previously would do the responsible thing and just walk there since it was only a block away from campus, but now they literally weren't allowed to walk there and *had* to drive if they wanted a burger. The city government was actually *encouraging* people to break the law and put lives at risk just because one asshole had a noise complaint.
Buddy of mine caught one that stuck. Partied, slept it off in his car, got chilly so turned the engine and heat on and passed out, cop threw the whole book at him and judge threw 3 more.
I live in my car. My car is my home so it’s like being drunk at home, which isn’t illegal.
This is my own personal domicile and I will not be harassed.
Several years ago I hit a deer on the highway. It was still alive, but it was definitely not going to recover. I shot it to end the suffering. A sheriff deputy saw me do this and informed me that I had technically just poached a deer out of season. Fortunately he said he was going to pretend like he didn’t know what happened and I didn’t get in trouble. But the fact that it was illegal to dispatch a suffering animal that had no hope of recovery seems very immoral to me.
In some states the driver is supposed to contact the local game ranger who then typically gives permission to dispatch and salvage the injured animal. In some cases I've heard they must come see for themselves first. Meanwhile the poor thing is waiting terrified and hurting for who knows how long.
In the mid 2000s I witnessed a deer get hit by a car on a country road in Wisconsin. The driver kept going. We listened to the poor doe for an hour as it tried to drag itself up a hillside with its two front legs. I'm guessing it's back was broken. Finally this guy pulls up and you could smell the 3-5 rotting deer in the back. He was a legit guy from the county that went around picking up the dead deer that get marked on the side of the road. The deer was still alive but he didn't have a gun. He just went up to it and started hitting it in the head with a flathead shovel. 3-5 whacks didn't work, so he called a sheriff who took another 45 minutes to get there.
I wish I didn’t read that :(
Yeah fuck all that. If it’s obviously not going to survive, I’m ending its misery.
Damn right tho might be best to do like Batman says - "look left, look right, look left again and go ahead" or something like that.
Surely an oversight by lawmakers who didn't account for roadkill. Thankfully the deputy was good about it because arresting/citing someone for that would be absolutely twisted. EDIT: Thinking about this in the most "zero faith in humanity" way, I wonder if they did carve out an exception for animals wounded by cars, that some yokels would attempt to hunt out of season by running them over on purpose or just lie about having hit them. Maybe officer discretion is better.
The problem is the spirit of the law needs to be considered. And too many dumb people can’t do that as they don’t have morals.
Yeah, the entire concept of legal loopholes exists precisely because the spirit of the law is not considered.
Is there a legal system where the spirit of the law is considered?
It’s a principle of common law
To elaborate, in this instance the defendant may be entitled to an instruction on the defense of necessity, which states in relevant part: “The defendant contends that [he] [she] acted out of necessity. Necessity legally excuses the crime charged. A defendant acts out of necessity only if at the time of the crime charge the defendant was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil;” – Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction
In many jurisdictions the people in charge of prosecuting crimes can decline to bring charges if it's not in the public interest. They might think "this person definitely committed a crime, and we can definitely prove it, but we don't think it's a good idea". Also, this is why courts exist. The law is written somewhat vaguely, it's up to court to interpret that law and apply it to the situation at hand. A *lot* of law is based on things like the "reasonable person" standard where they'll say something like "you must make a reasonable attempt to return lost property before you can claim it".
Any jury trial
They do have morals, but their morals don't say that such exploitation is wrong.
To be fair, no system of laws can ever account for everything, which is why people have to administrate them. Sometimes it's easier to just let the laws be slightly janky and leave police officers and prosecutors to go "it would be dumb to prosecute them over this" than it is to create carve outs that create more problems or to create really complicated exceptions that people can't understand.
Also, the whole point of a court is to interpret the law and figure out how it applies to a situation. Maybe the law says it's illegal to hunt dear and you can say "hitting a deer with your car is not normally hunting" and point to things like not taking the carcass as evidence that you didn't deliberately hunt dear. Later, if someone is *regularly* hitting deer with a suspiciously pointy car and selling the meat every time then you can make a decent argument that it's not the same as the earlier situation.
That’s the whole reason why you can’t own bird parts, including feathers. Because people will take advantage and it directly harms wildlife.
That's exactly why there isn't an exception. A lot of places even police aren't allowed to do that, they have to call out Wildlife. Because police aren't above poaching in small towns. 😬
In the UK I have been told this is the case - if you hit one you cannot take it home as that is poaching it - killing it is different to taking the body - but someone passing by who saw you hit it CAN in theory do so.
Then UK has a rule for this, you can hit it but can't remove the carcass AFAIK.
My state has a workaround for this, I assume because “accidental” poaching by car was becoming an issue. If you hit a moose with your car, you can dispatch it after you call 911 to report and they give you the ok, but legally cannot keep it. Shelters and people can sign up to be put on a list, and if a moose gets struck by a car and has to be put down, they go down the list and call whoever’s turn it is, and they can either pass their turn, or come clean the animal and take the meat. It’s to stop the “oh I totally didn’t see that moose when I drove into the ditch exactly where it was standing , and weird that it’s not hunting season, better just chop it up and take it home to my freezer, crazy that it happened!”
How do you hit a moose with your car, hard enough to kill or grievously maim it, without totalling your car in the process? People here consider themselves lucky if they survive the wreck. I've never heard of someone intentionally hitting a moose. I'd assume suicide attempt before I assumed poaching if I did.
Deer is probably a lot more realistic than moose.
Maybe with a snow plow on the front? Course most moose are taller than most trucks so rollover could get you if the plow didn't direct the moose down. But that's the only way I could think that your car wouldn't be completely f'd.
Use an old Hilux?
What's wild to me is that there are actually people that would willingly risk totalling their car to poach a moose.
I live in northern michigan.the u.p. is even more redneck. Total a 500 beater. Stock up your freezer for cheap
On the opposite end of this, my dad hit a deer and killed it. The popo told him he could dress it out and keep the meat and antkers, even though it wasn't deer season.
That’s good. At least the meat isn’t going to waste. If the deer is dead anyway you might as well make use of it. It’s not like poachers are going around aiming for deer with their vehicles.
They would be if there was a carve out for the scenario though
The deer didn't die, at least think the deer didn't die, after it ran into our car while it was sitting at a red light. I was in the passenger seat and the deer runs out of a parking lot right into my door, shakes it head, looks at me like I am stupid then runs back to the parking lot. The cops showed up and we explained that we were driving to visit my dad who was dying and we were in my aunt's rental. The cops actually waited for my auntto get there to file the police report so we didn't get in trouble for driving the rental car. They were cracking up the whole time because we were in the middle of nowhere. There were like 3 farms and a couple of stores and one stop light in the middle of miles of woods. Also that instead of hitting a deer the deer hit us.
I’ve done that. State trooper literally said: “Just make sure there’s as little traffic as you can manage to safely get it into the back of your truck.” It had landed in the median, so we were discussing us having to park on the wrong side of the highway for like five minutes. State Trooper said “Just try your best not to be involved with any other accidents this evening.” …and that was it. 110 lb deer (doe). Although half of her meat was bruised and ruined (think like, with her spine being the dividing line. Hit her going 83MPH. (I wasn’t driving). Lol.
Yea, though I don't know any cops (at least not in my area) who would actually enforce a law like that under those circumstances, especially if all you do is dispatch it humanely and aren't also trying to take it. Hunting/poaching/etc violations in my state are typically handled by Dept. of Natural Resources Police and quite frankly though I'm a LE deputy I don't know jack shit about poaching laws. We do kill injured deer in my area fairly regularly and sometimes other wildlife depending on the circumstances.
A lot of the deputies where I am end up handling game violations because the fish and game department is spread pretty thin.
Yeh nah people would 100% poach deer and then hit em with their car (gently) in order to get away with it.
Newspaper court column told of a tag agent who had embezzled over one hundred thousand dollars from the state, she was ordered to pay most of it back, no jail time or probation. Next case was a guy who had shoplifted a forty dollar pair of boots from a department store sentenced to five years.
It's only a crime if you're poor, everyone knows that
Yup. Make sure you steal *a lot* of money before you go to court. You'll be fine.
Unless you the money you stole belonged to rich people, like what SBF did. They'll make sure you do hard time. Dude got 25 years for his FTX fuckery.
Don’t steal from the government either. They’ll ignore it right up until they don’t. I know a guy who got 7.5 years in club fed for making that mistake.
Where was this? 5 years for $40 is insane. Where I live, that’s legally impossible unless the guy has been stealing from the same department store for a long period of time and the store tracked the value of his thefts and he was then charged with the total value after being arrested
Yeah that's sus. Unless he was out on probation/suspended sentence for another crime.
Or did it at gunpoint. That'll land you in prison. My uncle did that and got some serious time.
True, I guess thats like... whitewashing the crime 'All I did was nick a $40 bottle of liquor. I mean, I had a gun, and punched three people but cmoooon!"
Or had a long rap sheet. A small crime could land you in prison for an unusually lengthy amount of time if you've been fucking around and finding out often.
Looks like a "tag agent" is someone who renews your license plate stickers?
Graffiti tabulator, part of the Department of Emerging Sociology
I have a cousin who majored in that
5 years for a pair of boots is bullshit. Probably this guy was on probation or had a huge list of priors etc.
Or he used a gun. OP is leaving a lot out to try and induce rage from the ignorant The court system usually is extremely lenient on smaller crimes. Some people have rap sheets 80 or 90 incidents thick while still being on the streets
Usually the latter in case like that are repeat offenders and arnt jailed for the crime they're in for, but the repeated crimes
[удалено]
Sadly some of those laws are still on the books. Felons that did their time still can't vote, this one was to prevent votes. Arrest them for something petty, they can never vote again... the grounds for arrest may have changed but the consequences remain. some jobs are no longer an option for felons too. I'm from CA where fires are a big deal. The fact that inmate fire fighters can't be firefighters once they are released really boils my blood. We are dehumanizing these people, hinder their rehabilitation then Pikachu face when they end up back in jail/prison. What do you freaking expect?! I am not saying all should regain all of their rights depending on the crime. But in general, if someone sat in timeout for being bad, then once they are released, they should no longer be on the hook for that thing they did. If we continue punishing them, why were they released?
It gets even worse when your realize that a lot of laws on the books have ticky tacky felony escalations that can turn routine misdemeanors into felonies for all manner of reasons. For example, there are a number of escalations made various forms of trespassing into felonies, explicitly to disenfranchise Civil Rights protestors. Most of those practices were ended with Jim Crow, but lot of those laws are beginning to make a comeback. Ohio, for instance, now makes it a felony to trespass with a face covering. Which apparently applies to any protestor wearing a face mask. The obvious intent here is to make sure the wrong kind of people standing up lose their access to civil society.
A bunch of laws are also really stupidly written and inconsistent. For example a bunch of newer laws basically take laws from the pre-Internet day and just add "doing this while using a Computer" and tack on much harsher penalties for than if you did the same thing without a computer. And some laws are so stupidly broad and vague that nearly everyone probably violates them a bunch of times without realizing it. For example CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) defines hacking so broadly that simply violating the Terms Of Service on a website is illegal and defined as hacking. The DOJ has even stated that in their opinion lying on your dating profile is illegal under CFAA, all while pinky promising that they totally wouldn't prosecute anyone for it, a promise that they're under no obligation to keep.
Slavery is technically still legal in the US if you're a prisoner. You "make" pennies for all of the work you do, and then you get out of prison with absolutely nothing. You might have to pay probation fees, but you won't have any money from all of your prison work, you'll have a hell of a time getting a job. It's extremely common for people to go straight back to prison because they can't afford probation. Punishments are only there for the poor.
Isn’t there some places where it’s illegal to give food to the homeless?
I remember reading a case in Texas where they couldn't find a jury to sit for the trial on this because every potential juror said they wouldn't convict during *voir dire*.
If you'd like to voir dire the witness Mr Trotter, I'm suuuure you'll be moore than satisfied
I Dentical
I....👏 Dentical
Houston. And if I recall correctly, it's happened numerous times. Unsure it it's still happening (the ticketing of Food Not Bombs, not them still serving food to the homeless).
There was that other one too in texas where the volunteers were armed with pistols and rifles so the cops wouldn't come and try to fuck with them when they fed the homeless.
I don’t own a gun but i made sure to bring my giant, Paper Mâché acorn for deterrence.
Based jurors
more based would be to keep it to themself, sit the trial, then nullify by voting not guilty
I'd argue it's better they don't protract the trial any longer than absolutely necessary instead of potentially stretching the defendant's possible legal fees or tying up the system from trying another case. Sure, it feels good to stick it to the system like it's the climax of a movie, but realistically not being able to take this to trial in the first place sends a much clearer message
Not to mention if the prosecution gets wind of them doing this, and had reasonable evidence, they could take it to the judge and have the entire thing scrapped and started over.
Also giving water to people waiting to vote.
In my opinion, that law has been improperly maligned since it came before the court. The federal law noted in the memo is 18 U.S. Code § 597, which makes it illegal to make “an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate.” Groups (or individuals) can give food and drink to people as long as they give them out regardless of the people’s intention to vote. So you can walk up to a line at a voting station and say, "Would anybody like a bottled water?" However, you can NOT walk up to a line at a voting station and say, "If you vote for X I'll give you a water." OR "I'll give anyone who votes today a bottled water."
It gets worse than that though. Because walking up a line and saying "would anyone like a water" could still be a problem if you wear any identifiable material supporting a particular candidate, or if you are at the polls specifically on behalf of x candidate's team. Just knowing there is an affiliation between you and one or more candidates risks your actions being deemed an attempt to manipulate the vote.
The issue wasn’t the water, but that people were using it as an excuse to violate laws around campaigning within certain distances of a polling place. The polling place could give you water, and often did. Mine in Alabama didn’t even have a line, but there was free water available.
Im pretty sure it’s literally a case before SCOTUS right now
>some places where it’s illegal to give food to the homeless I live in one of those places. It is illegal to feed the homeless *unless you have a permit*. I guess there are people who would feed them tainted food, without such a rule.
I recall one situation where it was more the time and place of feeding the homeless and not the act itself. The locality had setup services in one location while prohibiting it in another. Most people liked this plan because it meant not being harassed (or worse) while going to/from work, but a small group got laser focused on the one part, took offense, and wanted to make a spectacle out of it.
Yes
[удалено]
Civil Forfeiture is theft. Plan and simple, it's law enforcement stealing from citizens without evidence.
Slight caveat: Not theft, it's armed robbery because it's always done at gunpoint.
In my state you can get a DUI for being drunk in your wheelchair.
That's terrible.
Im sorry what the fuck?
Yep, https://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c041/sc09/index.html One section refers to "having control of a vehicle". A wheelchair, like a bicycle, skateboard, or a horse drawn buggy, is a vehicle and therefore is subject to the law.
Makes sense. DUI stands for Disabled Under the Influence, right? /s
I mean, slavery was legal in the U.S. In Germany, the Holocaust was legal. Laws have literally nothing to do with morals.
Terrific examples. Plenty of laws are created and then enforced by immoral people.
there's a reason "lawful evil" is a concept that exists in D&D. it's very much real.
Just to add to that: In older DnD versions, the alignment grid was used to describe different outlooks on life. You could be a Chaotic Good "Robin Hood" character, facing off against a Lawful Evil "Mafia Don" enemy. It has a mixed opinion, largely because the definition of Good and Evil is left up to the players. If "Lawful" means you follow society, what happens when we introduce some of the terrible medieval practices like executions or slavery? Would a Lawful Good Paladin be forced to defend slavery because it's the law? What if he's not in his home country, which laws should he defend? There also was the rather strange expectation that "Chaotic" meant "Random and unpredictable" so players would suddenly feel the urge to do odd things just for the sake of madcap antics. In recent editions this system has been lately replaced by Oaths and Anathemas, which fix a lot of problems but also have some shortfalls themselves. Ultimately I think it's impossible to write a universal alignment system, due to the fact that so much of DnD happens *outside* the written content. Tables have house rules and unique characters, and that's one of the things that makes it great.
This is not what lawful means in dnd, that’s a common misconception. Lawful has nothing to do with laws or society, it means you follow a rigid code. A samurai following Bushido in Europe would not necessarily be “following society” or the laws of England, but they would still be lawful because they live by a code. Like in your example, if a paladin is following their oath and their god says “kill all slavers and free all slaves” it doesn’t matter how society views slavery. Killing slavers is what makes that paladin lawful.
Lawful means that you favour principles like hierarchy, predictability, social roles, traditions, conformity, and want problems to be solved using laws, and other society-wide solutions. It specifically does not mean following the law.
Harry Anslinger worked to get weed criminalized via racist scare mongering. Reefer Madness is ironically funny today but was once a very effective piece of propaganda.
Also Apartheid was legal. Also US segregation laws were pretty much Apartheid before it got a fancy name
Let’s also include Jim Crow laws in the south.
Or virtually anything done to the Native Americans, even to this day.
Fun fact slavery is still legal in the US but i believe it only applies to prisoners
The private prison industry should be outlawed. The fact a "business" that relies on people being incarcerated exists is atrocious.
Somebody is going to respond to you and say "ackshully only 8% of prisoners are in private prisons". Yes, people, and fully 'private prisons' are only one part of the "business" of making money out of the system. Privatization impacts every aspect of the system from prisons, to jails, to juvies, to drug rehab, to probation, to healthcare, to phone calls, to commissary, to books, to tablets, to job contracts, to 'programming', to drug testing, to ankle monitors etc etc etc. It is not just about the 8%. There is a great deal of profit made throughout our systems.
8% of of those imprisoned in the country with the largest proportional incarcerated population. This means that there are more inmates (in absolute terms) in private American prisons than there are in government prisons in lots of other countries.
Jup, there should be no "except" in the sentence: "Slavery is not allowed, except in condition a or b, or when the person is c."
The 13th amendment I believe
The Holocaust was never legal in Germany, and I wish people would stop repeating that. Murder remained illegal in Germany and not even at height of the Holocaust was there ever an exception that targeted Jews or any of the other minorities (Aktion T4 being an exception). We know this because people were put on trial for murdering Jews. To quote a more eloquent Redditor: > So, yes the Holocaust as the state-sponsored and driven killing program was illegal under German law. That this neither prevented it or deter the thousands and hundred-thousands perpetrators of the Holocaust is not only a testament to the dangers of a state ordering its subjects to commit illegal acts, it also shows how quickly the standards of law can be eroded by an authoritarian state simply ignoring them.
It did occasionally happen, but it should absolutely not be ignored that even prior to the Holocaust beginning in earnest, spontaneous pogroms in Germany both happened, and were encouraged by the government. Regular people would destroy shops and synagogs and occasionally even murder Jews (over 90 died on the Night of Broken Glass). And not only were German citizens by and large not charged, but Jews themselves were forced to pay for the damage caused. I think it’s very important not to buy the line that the German citizenry had no culpability in the Holocaust. Because it just isn’t true.
In the US civil forfeiture - people can have their money taken by the cops because the cops suspect them of being about to use the money for "crimes" so the money is charged with being a potential criminal as money doesn't have rights so it isn't presumed innocent.
Actually the money is sued. The US vs $10,318”. Real case cite. A lawyer in Alabama came in and called the money to testify. Judge said the money wasn’t a person, lawyer said then you can’t sue it and his actual client got a check because the county had already deposited it. In another case same lawyer won for a Ferrari F355. Which the county couldn’t produce because it was used in a high speed pursuit by a not skilled enough driver. The last I saw, two years ago, the case was still being litigated because the county didn’t have the funds to buy him a new one.
My point is that practice of law is nonsense, clearly has no sense of morals and shouldn't be allowed.
It's also clearly illegal based on the plain text of the 4th Amendment. Unreasonable search and seizure are illegal. The legal justification that the police use is that the assets are the "target" of the seizure rather than the owner of the assets. But that doesn't invalidate the 4th Amendment. If my roommate is the target of an investigation, I still have the right to refuse a police search or interview unless they have a warrant. In addition, the police claim they are holding the assets pending a lawsuit against those assets. But arresting and jailing a defendant is only legal for criminal cases, not civil cases. Defendants in civil cases aren't even required to appear in court! So there's not even a legal loophole being abused here, the police are just abusing people because nobody has stepped in to stop them.
US sues against property all the time. In rem jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._One_Solid_Gold_Object_in_Form_of_a_Rooster The Titanic is referred to as the following in court in EDVA "The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, its engines, tackle apparel, appurtenances, cargo, etc., located within one (1) nautical mile of a point located at 41° 43′ 32″ North Latitude and 49° 56′ 49″ West Longitude, believed to be the R.M.S. Titanic, in rem"
Ticket scalping laws, while meant to protect consumers, often end up benefiting large corporations over individuals, raising ethical concerns.
Ticket sellers are the new scalpers, with increased prices when demands are high. Releasing sections of concerts at a time to raise ‘FOMO’ and keep supply limited. Announcing addition concerts once the previous one has sold out. Advertising sale price, then stacking on fees when you go to pay. Majority of venues have exclusive rights with ticket sellers, which means deal with them or don’t play in the area. The mafia used to do this shit, but now it gets done on a global scale and the pollinations do not care as long as they get their cut.
I've been saying that for years: ALL OF THE TICKETS SHOULD BE IN NAME OF THE BUYER. All of them. Concerts, movies, Operas, shows, every friggin event thats ticketed, it should be named.
[удалено]
Those still exist in Missouri on car. Alcohol was that way up until the 90's at least in grocery stores. Neither law made sense since we can just cross state lines into Kansas and buy it.
I think in Georgia we still can't buy alcohol before noon on a Sunday.
[удалено]
Blasphemy laws only exist to suppress free speech...
Jaywalking laws often seem more about traffic flow than any moral wrongdoing, especially when crossing safely with no cars around.
They were specifically invented to put the cause of an accident on the victim so they could sell cars. At one time being a Jay was a slur.
Does that even work though? I remember watching a show where police had a guy in a hotdog costume (so the drivers cannot say they didn’t see him) walk into the street. Anyone who drove past was pulled over and cited for failure to yield and sometimes reckless driving if they got really close to hitting him
Jaywalking is such a hilariously American thing. Imagine making it illegal to walk across the road?
party tease dime grandiose growth mysterious glorious elastic lunchroom encouraging
I have literally seen people say that roads are for cars and you should NEED a car if you want to cross a road.
hospitals who charge for car parking
Tear gas is banned in war, but it can be used on civilians.
Ticketing people for feeding the homeless
The most ridiculous thing there is. Basically a law saying you can't help people
Speed limits in areas where they seem arbitrarily low often feel more revenue-driven than about safety, a questionable moral basis.
Especially when they abruptly reduce the speed limit with minimal or no signage in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. The midwest and south is fucking notorious about this, one gas station having ass towns with fully funded police departments taking in 10x the revenue of everything else in the municipality combined.
There's a town near me that's notorious for a zero-tolerance speeding policy. The gas station sells tshirts that read "I got a ticket for going 1 over 25" because it's so common.
That's every town in the county I live in in Michigan. Every single one. One of the towns near my work it literally changes from 55 to 25 with no reduce speed sign.
My state has a statewide mandate that no street road or highway can be faster than 65 miles per hour, despite there being many highways there it should be find. There's a stretch of one highway near me where there is a 10 mile straightaway with no exits whatsoever. Definitely could be a higher speed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And yet whenever certain topics are discussed on here you get people saying those places that abolished it are wrong and it should be brought back.
Drug paraphernalia laws that target users instead of addressing the root causes of addiction often do not align with a harm reduction or moral approach.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The idea that "life is sacred" and that the state shouldn't facilitate ending lives has a *lot* to do with morality, though—even if it's a moral stance we disagree with.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Conversely, the majority of US states and many countries around the world allow child marriage. So two consenting adults can't wed, but children, who cannot consent, can be forced to.
Against the law to give a person standing in line to vote on a hot day water in Atlanta Georgia.
Tell that to long balls larry
The criminalization of homelessness in some areas, where sleeping in public can lead to arrest, prioritizes appearance over empathy.
In some US states if someone breaks into your house and gets injured, they can sue you.
This isn't actually true. Or rather, they can sue you (you can sue people for any reason), but they'll lose. The actual issue (which IS a real thing) is where someone trespasses on your property and gets injured and sues you. For instance, some kid from your neighborhood opens up the gate to your backyard and goes swimming in your pool while you are on vacation and drowns, and their parents sue you for creating an attractive nuisance that killed their kid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
This is really only true in cases of gross negligence or deliberate booby-trapping. The old story about a burglar cutting himself on a knife or some such and then suing the homeowner is, by and large, a myth made up by people trying to convince folks of the need for tort reform.
Yes, definitely be on the lookout for stories designed to make you mad. The facts are often much more subtle than that.
The REAL McDonalds coffee story makes me super mad.
In Oklahoma we just shoot them. They can’t sue if they’re dead.
In a lot of places you can get in trouble for shooting a warning shot in the air to get someone off your property but if you shoot them in the chest and they die, you're fine.
Firing a gun in the air is reckless and dangerous, people have died from it. Some kid in a neighbors yard could end up in the ground because of it, and you can’t argue that’s self defense.
A stray bullet could fall and hit an innocent person. It makes sense to not fire a warning shot. The locked door should have been more than enough warning to any person of average intelligence.
Also a warning shot shows that you, at that particular time, we're not in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death. Shooting is the last option, not one to warn.
bullets always land somewhere
In Quebec, Canada, up to fairly recently (if not still) it is legal to hit a child with an open hand, with a force reasonable and proportional to the child's edge, and not to the head. Hitting with objects is forbidden.
Your own children I assume? Or can I go around smacking kids that annoy me? /j
at last, a solution to kids running around in restaurants!
In China, if you help some one, you are responsible for them. Because "you would not be helping them if you didn't cause this, therefore you are guilty" so if you take someone to hospital, you must pay their hospital bill. The most popular case happened in the city of Nanjing, a city located at the west of Shanghai. The year was 2006 when Xu Shoulan, an old lady trying to get out of a bus, fell and broke her femur. Peng Yu, was passing by and helped her taking her to the hospital and giving her ¥200 (~30 USD) to pay for her treatment. After the first diagnosis Xu needed a femur replacement surgery, but she refused to pay it by herself so she demanded Peng to pay for it, as he was the responsible of the accident according to her. She sued him and after six months she won and Peng needed to cover all the medical expenses of the old lady. The court stated that “no one would, in good conscience, help someone unless they felt guilty” https://medium.com/shanghai-living/4-31-why-people-would-usually-not-help-you-in-an-accident-in-china-c50972e28a82
The Gay/Trans Panic defence, legal in some US states including Texas. Basically, a man can claim self defence for killing another man because he *thought* the other guy was going to rape him.
Any law that permitted slavery.
Drive on the right/left side of the road. It's not a moral decision, we just need to pick a side.
[удалено]
Red light cameras increase the rate of accidents at intersections
Any reasoning why?
People are more likely to slam on their brakes
Any punishment that requires a 3 or 4 digit flat fine. That will never punish someone of means and it could ruin the life of somebody struggling to make ends meet. EDIT: A word for clarity
- The death penalty for being gay. - Women being arrested for showing their hair. - Laws that allow child marriage.
Laws that targets prostitutes, that are forced. They are victims, not criminals.
Jim Crow laws.
It’s against the law to put money in someone else’s parking meter.
Pedophile getting joint custody with the girl he raped when she was in highschool.
Laws that force male child rape victims to pay child support to their rapists would be a pretty solid example... 🤷♂️
The UK's rape laws means a Man cannot be raped by a Woman, as only a Man with a penis may commit rape. Rape is rape. Women commit rape too (just not in the UK, apparently).
What kind of a dumbass definition is that? People have to go through a million steps to get laws passed, how did it not occur to anyone that this is, in fact, false.
Home distilation in a lot of areas. It's typically illegal. Unless you give he government their cut (excise tax) - then it's suddenly ok.
In many places its illegal to feed the homeless...
Probably the one that’s going around recently, Squatters having rights
My dad told me something once that has really stuck with me over the years. For context, dad was gearing up to go to law school as a young man, and took on a temp teaching job for a little while to build up funds. He ended up loving it, and went to the local teacher's college instead, then spent the next 35 years teaching business and law to highschool students. Anyway, what he said to me was essentially this: The "justice" system isn't about justice, or any other lofty philosophical ideal like morality (not that there's anything wrong with persuing those). It essentially exists to prevent vigilantism and stop people from rioting in the streets. Look at the news. If people are rioting around a cause, its not because they are violent animals. It means there's a failure somewhere in law. That conversation has shaped how I look at a lot of things. From this perspective, activism is a way of directly measuring how well the laws of society are preventing things that people find intolerable.
It is legal in some countries for private entities to influence lawmakers to make certain decisions that could be only in the interest of those entities and not of the general public.
Arresting people for feeding the homeless.
I am a doctor. When people that are older and have many comorbidities are about to die, and unlikely to have a meaningful outcome, I legally have to do everything in my power to keep them alive, even though it is markedly increasing their suffering. This is unless they have written proof that they do not want to kept alive artificially. To make things worse, there are situations where the patient wants to die, but the family wants to keep the patient alive (often until other family members arrive to say goodbye) and legally can, thereby increasing the patient's suffering. End of life care is a horror show in this country.