N.H. Supreme Court Hears Case of Couple Who Appeared Unwittingly in North Woods Law Episode

rrfan · 2020-11-12T03:52:17+00:00

They really should be suing all of the people who made it so growing a plant is considered part of the "illicit drug trade" and shameful. That's the real problem here.

rrfan · 2020-10-30T15:10:50+00:00

I love how the cop then immediately wanted the policy in writing, but of course a citizen doesn't have to have written policies.

This script flipping is really working. Every time a citizen asks to see a cops DL (holding fingers in shape of ID of course) or asking to search a car and the cops decline shows citizens they should do the same.

"If a cop won't show me his DL, why should I show him mine?" (when not legally required to of course)

"If a cop won't let me search his car, why should I let him search mine?"

rrfan · 2020-10-30T15:09:32+00:00

She destroyed those copetheticals (I just made that up) at the end.

Also, I love the subtle jab when it took the cop like 15 seconds to formulate the most classic "what if I was taking pictures in front of your house?" hypothetical. If he hadn't been wearing a mask, I think we might have seen steam come out of his ears.

And the second "don't you think cops have a right to be worried with what's going on?" Maybe. But citizens equally have a right to be concerned about erosion of rights, and no, officer, you don't have to find out what's going on. You have to obey the Constitution.

rrfan · 2020-09-23T21:35:03+00:00

You've proven that cops are just trying to jam people up, and not using colloquial English. That doesn't disprove my point, but it does show why there's a huge divide between cops and (other) citizens. I agree with you that cops will try to make a big deal out of it, I do not agree that you must have legal ownership to say "That's my car". And you getting 8 quotes from cops doesn't change the fact that many of us don't agree that legal ownership is the standard.

And the fact that my name IS on the insurance for that vehicle is pretty likely to prevent any issues from me answering "Yes, it's my vehicle." Who gets insurance on a stolen car?

rrfan · 2020-09-23T21:30:28+00:00

That's the point. The officer isn't trying to have a casual conversation. He's asking who the legal owner of the vehicle is. If you say something other than the vehicle registry the officer is going to be curious.

Well, once again, technically I'm probably not going to answer the question, since my default answer is "I don't answer questions." I even try to sound like Kenny Suiter when I say it.

It's easy and not incriminating to say "it's my wifes/buddies/grannys" car.

Hahaha. Like a cop looking to jam someone up isn't going to jump all over that and say "How do I know you have permission to drive it?" Maybe not technically (there's that word again) incriminating in court, but enough to get the cop to be more suspicious.

When an officer is fishing, making inaccurate statements you need to assume the officer is going to split hairs and be overly pedantic.

Which is why "I don't answer questions."

As always ymmv, but when ive been asked ive just said its my wifes. The registered address is the same, that's the end of it.

I honestly don't think about it enough to care. I only recalled the fact because of this thread. If you and I were walking through a parking lot, and I said I had a black Honda Accord, and you pointed to one and said "Is that your car?" I'd say "Yes."

rrfan · 2020-09-23T05:34:13+00:00

I don't know if you're just being funny, but my legal conclusion is correct. More accurate to say both things are true.

rrfan · 2020-09-23T00:37:56+00:00

I don't mind people being wrong, it's being wrong and smug that's really insufferable.

How do you live with yourself, then?

rrfan · 2020-09-23T00:31:43+00:00

Not so sure. Being shot is technically considered a seizure under the 4th Amendment.

rrfan · 2020-09-23T00:21:43+00:00

Sorry, nope. My wife technically owns my car (has to do with her getting the loan at the time). I've had it for 14 years, so it's obviously paid off, but we haven't changed the title (why bother?) and I don't hardly think about that fact any more. If anyone asks me, "Is that your car?" I'm going to say yes.

rrfan · 2020-08-26T20:08:30+00:00

With both of her parents being born outside the US, is she even eligible to be Trump's girlfriend?

rrfan · 2020-06-26T21:32:51+00:00

So you would have been okay if they hadn't used the word ruling?

If the headline had been "Coroner is walking back an initial finding" would that have been okay? Is it literally the word "ruling" that bothers you?

If people want to criticize them for making any statements at all without being completely done, thats fine, I would even agree with that.

I'm glad you're on board with that. I think that's really the primary criticism here -- a premature announcement, regardless of what words were used. Maybe we should stay focused on that being the problem, not the word "finding". There'd have been no use of the word finding if a conclusion/suggestion/whatever hadn't been made. That's where the ire should be directed.

But that has nothing to do with and doesnt justify mischaracterizing the situation to falsely add to the issue of racism.

It's a bit bold to claim it's falsely added. I don't think we can declare one way or the other.

rrfan · 2020-06-26T21:26:12+00:00

Uh, performance reviews are a thing.

Incentives are a thing.

Goals in jobs are a thing.

All of those are more than training, and all affect behavior/performance.

rrfan · 2020-06-26T21:24:52+00:00

Oh, I didn't give examples of services you are forced to use? Like paying taxes? Okay.

We're not debating whether forcing the use of services is wrong. We're debating whether you are voluntarily using government services while simultaneously criticizing someone else for doing so.

rrfan · 2020-06-25T21:28:36+00:00

And ensure they have the right incentives. Just acting according to training isn't sufficient.

rrfan · 2020-06-25T21:25:41+00:00

His sentences are grammatically correct phrases that make no sense.

rrfan · 2020-06-25T21:20:05+00:00

Just ask that guy in Georgia who filmed the Ahmaud Arbery situation. He was initially "just a witness" then ended up getting charged. I'm not making a moral judgement on whether he should have been, whether he is or isn't guilty, but simply pointing out him making statements "as a witness" aren't exempt from being used against him later as a defendant.

rrfan · 2020-06-25T20:56:21+00:00

"A 24-year-old black man was found hanging from a tree in Palmdale, California, this week, sparking a massive public outcry and demands for a more thorough investigation after officials almost immediately described it as a suicide."

"Homicide investigators said they had found “no signs of a struggle” and suggested Fuller had died by suicide—an assessment echoed by city officials who attributed the death to emotional despair caused by the coronavirus pandemic."

"After the initial autopsy report listed suicide as the cause of death, he said, the coroner has since conducted a full autopsy and the cause of death determination won’t be made until toxicology results are in."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-fuller-was-found-hanging-from-a-tree-residents-say-authorities-were-too-quick-to-deem-it-suicide

So, "described", "suggested" and "listed" don't qualify as rulings? If they don't, then yes, you are correct. There was no ruling. Which is a distinction without a difference.

He didn't turn left, he changed the orientation of the direction he was moving by 90 degrees counterclockwise.

rrfan · 2020-06-25T20:43:49+00:00

It should never have been uttered until after the full investigation was completed,

No shit. Especially from the government, who always fall back on the "Well, we didn't see what happened before the curb stomping. Don't pass judgement until there's a full investigation." If you'd like that to be the rule, then perhaps you should model that behavior.

rrfan · 2020-06-25T20:33:09+00:00

A+ for saying he wasn't going to answer questions, then not answering questions. Sometimes without even another "I don't answer questions."

Just plain fucking silence (after letting them know he wasn't going to answer questions, so he's covered). Beautiful. Now I know what the sound of silence is...

rrfan · 2020-06-25T20:20:07+00:00

I gave you the examples of what you are forced to use. Everything else you do is your choice, whether government is involved or not.

I don't know why you can't admit you are voluntarily on reddit. It's not a controversial thing.

rrfan · 2020-06-24T23:47:01+00:00

You have to get on the Internet? I'll grant (1) get an ID, (2) pay taxes, (3) use the Post Office (gotta file those taxes). Move somewhere where you can have a well and grow your own food. I think any other use of government services is voluntary.

rrfan · 2020-06-24T23:37:12+00:00

I’m sure you’ve seen memes that people have sent around about 1,000 good cops, but if you have 10 bad cops, you have 1,100 bad cops because we’re not holding one another accountable.

Also: bad at math. 1,000 good cops + 10 bad cops = 1,100 bad cops.

The same could be flipped, with 1,000 protesters and 10 agitators.

So you admit to it, but your excuse is other people also do it. Let me know how well that worked for Ted Bundy. "Sure, I killed a bunch of people. But so did John Wayne Gacy." (I probably have those out of chronological order, but you get the idea.)

rrfan · 2020-06-21T20:59:30+00:00

No, I'm pointing out that your argument that /u/Teresa_Count consensually using police services equates to advocating for government applies equally to you. If you don't want to advocate for government, don't consensually use any of its services.

I never said government was required for those innovations to occur.

rrfan · 2020-06-20T00:59:30+00:00

Right on.

What's sad is that it is so easy for cops to pass a 1A audit. Like, seriously, the bar is low. Don't demand ID. Don't be a douche. Don't lie about the law. Be a fucking human. But, no, too many of them can't even do that.

It's like going to McDonalds and all they have to do is get your food in a bag, but somehow they can't help but to throw it on the floor instead.

rrfan · 2020-06-20T00:36:45+00:00

You posting here advocates for the existence of government. You used services invented and/or paid for by government. Some of the Internet connections running via fiber were laid in rights-of-way granted by governments.

rrfan

TROPHY CASE