2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on April 09, 2025, 06:40:04 PM
-
While our legislators are busy disarming the law abiding, we are reminded to always be the victim, not a hero! Just give them your hard earned money! Shower criminals with ALOHA!
https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-crime/gunpoint-robberies-on-oahu-dont-be-a-hero/
“Whenever we hear about armed robbery and stuff, we always tell people, ‘Don’t be a hero. Your life is not worth it,” said Retail Merchants of Hawaii president Tina Yamaki. “Your adrenaline is going. We don’t want anybody to be shot. You know, a stray bullet hitting another customer or our worker. We just want it to be safe for everybody.”
Safe for everybody? Did this message get to the criminal holding the gun? I doubt he/she has taken an HPD approved safety class prior to legally acquiring the gun and registering it. How do we know that the criminal won't shoot after they got the money Tina?
-
"We just want it to be safe for everybody.”
That counts double for the criminal who put everyone (including themselves) in danger.
Even criminals deserve safe working conditions.
:crazy:
-
She has testified many times against the 2a.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
It puts a whole new spin on the classic Hawaii tattoo
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/2NG1n1qhc3JT0tIDOdj7cGAL-kP4NOlTQaJw1bqiDhU/rs:fit:860:0:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9saXZl/LnN0YXRpY2ZsaWNr/ci5jb20vNTA1Mi81/NTQ4MzQwNTg2XzFm/YjQwMWNkM2MuanBn)
-
Too funny. :rofl:
-
Hi Tina Yama-sock it to me........ :wave:
You go first.
Show us how it's done.
Keep in mind a lot of us are slow learners so you might wanna do it a couple of times or ten. :shaka:
-
If I was just an employee, sure I give the robber the money. If I was the owner of a business that seems to attract robberies, mom and pop, liquor or convenience store,
you can be sure I would be wearing body armor and carrying a firearm. Has anyone heard of a gun store getting robbed?
-
"....your life is not worth it"
TWSS
SMH
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcASV2sey0
-
"....your life is not worth it"
Almost the exact words I tell the would be robber after I stopped the threat and before the accidental discharge.
Was what you were trying to steal worth your life?
-
" some kind of way that they can protect themselves because yes, it is it is very challenging times,” Matsuoka said.
:thumbsup:
-
The majority of people in hawaii are just like Tina Yamasaki.
"Just give it to them....." How far are you willing to go, Tina? Your money? How about your body? Are you willing to have them have their way with you without a fight?
Some people would.
The point is we as a society should not stop and say "que sera sera" when stuff like this happens. There should be a never ending effort to bring justice and hand out punishments when these things happen.
And this is where hawaii and other states in the nation make no effort to do. Seems like there is only talk and no walk lately.
Let's start by giving law abiding citizens the choice to choose if they want to arm and defend themselves and their loved ones.
Sometimes when everyone knows this choice is allowed, criminals slink back into their holes and think twice before trying anything.
Don't be a hero? This kind of cowardly talk leads to widespread apathy. Imagine if the US was a nation of apathetic people.
Oh wait...........
-
Almost the exact words I tell the would be robber after I stopped the threat and before the accidental discharge.
Was what you were trying to steal worth your life?
... and is it worth taking someone else's life, getting caught, and spending the rest of your life in prison?
It's hard to plan past one step ahead when all you can think about is that next fix or drink.
-
It's not worth your own business that you built to give it all away to someone who is a criminal.
It's not worth your own business that supports your family.
The irony is that someone like Tina Yamaki who never owned a business before to tell business owners what their worth is....
-
... and is it worth taking someone else's life, getting caught, and spending the rest of your life in prison?
It's hard to plan past one step ahead when all you can think about is that next fix or drink.
You would probably be acquitted. I worked 80-85 hours a week for 4.5 years to build a successful business.
I would not let some punk steal that from me without a fight. Ever since I was 18 and had my car stolen
after working two summers picking pineapples to get enough money to buy it, I have had an intense hatred for people who steal.
-
Trusting your life to the benevolence of an armed criminal is not a strategy, it is just plain stupidity.
-
More and more people in hawaii are just like Tina Yamaki.
Instead of living life to its fullest and enjoying (AND PROTECTING) the fruits of your hard labor, they relinquish themselves to living the life of sheeple and fear.
Wha a f*ckn life. I'd rather be dead.
-
Even prosecutors are listening to Tina Yamaki! Just give 'em to the criminals. No gun involved let 'em just take! Everybody safe! Nobody got shot! It's a 'safe' crime! Spread da ALOHA!
https://www.khon2.com/local-news/store-owner-sounds-the-alarm-on-rising-theft-urging-prosecutors-to-do-more-to-stop-it/
It’s an ongoing problem business owners say is getting worse. The issue: shoplifting.
James Gieschen, president of Sugar Sugar Hawaii retail store, said enough is enough and wants prosecutors to do more to stop it.
Local buyer says Tesla didn’t ship his special edition car and sold it to someone else
“If we just boil it down to one word, what is the issue here? It’s inaction,” Geischan said.
He is frustrated because he said his shop has been dealing with shoplifting since they opened six years ago and things have only gotten worse.
“It’s gotten really bad recently,” Geischan explained. “It’s about one to two thefts per day across all locations. And that’s a huge hit for a small business.”
Geishcan has invested thousands into a top-of-the-line surveillance system. He posts photos of the shoplifters on his store walls as a deterrent, and he reports most of the incidents to police But he said nothing seems to change.
-
Prosecutors grab a paycheck without actually doing anything.
Just like HPD.
Just like the Courts and the slimeballs that make up the courts.
Just like the inhabitants of the sewer at City Hall and that bldg. on Beretania St. they call the Kapitol.
-
Prosecutors grab a paycheck without actually doing anything.
Just like HPD.
Just like the Courts and the slimeballs that make up the courts.
Just like the inhabitants of the sewer at City Hall and that bldg. on Beretania St. they call the Kapitol.
Most states reward prosecutors with raises and advancement based on conviction rates. The best way to keep those rates high is to avoid charging any case that has a chance of the state losing.
Who cares if letting criminals back on the streets is not in the best interest of the people? As long as the state's employees are moving up the ladder and getting larger portions from the gravy train, life is good!
A plea deal counts as a conviction, and you only have to appear in court two times -- the bare minimum. Show up once for the arraignment, and once to have a judge sign off on the plea deal. Next case!!
-
Most states reward prosecutors with raises and advancement based on conviction rates. The best way to keep those rates high is to avoid charging any case that has a chance of the state losing.
Who cares if letting criminals back on the streets is not in the best interest of the people? As long as the state's employees are moving up the ladder and getting larger portions from the gravy train, life is good!
A plea deal counts as a conviction, and you only have to appear in court two times -- the bare minimum. Show up once for the arraignment, and once to have a judge sign off on the plea deal. Next case!!
There are additional factors that go into that calculus. A lot of people who are actually guilty don't get charged because of aspects about the case. PC for arrest is much easier to prove than proof beyond a reasonable doubt needed to win in court. Prosecutors do have an incentive to take case they think they are going to win but this also serves the effect of not wasting time and money on cases they don't think they can win. Plea deals are part of this efficiency, maybe you can get a 3 year sentence and drug treatment on a crime that should be a 10 year sentence but if you fought it in court and lose then the criminal gets off with nothing.
Another aspect is that they are often dealing with a triage situation. They can only handle so many cases a day, the court can only handle so many hearings, and prisons can only handle so many prisoners. It isn't that they are stupid or lazy, though I am sure some are, rather it is more akin to a medical triage, taking the ones they can win and releasing the ones they don't think they can win so they can focus on the bigger or better cases.
Sometimes it isn't the prosecutors at all, it is judges who make strange rulings that tie the hands of the police and the prosecutors into pursuing good cases that are no longer winnable due to case precedent.
Lastly sometimes you just have idiot juries that will believe the dumbest of stuff. I knew a prosecutor who once told me about a burglary case, that the jury didn't convict the burglar because the witness saw the burglar leave the house but didn't see the burglar enter the house. The reasoning was that the statue talks about entering a building so since no one say him enter they said not guilty.
-
There are additional factors that go into that calculus. A lot of people who are actually guilty don't get charged because of aspects about the case. PC for arrest is much easier to prove than proof beyond a reasonable doubt needed to win in court. Prosecutors do have an incentive to take case they think they are going to win but this also serves the effect of not wasting time and money on cases they don't think they can win. Plea deals are part of this efficiency, maybe you can get a 3 year sentence and drug treatment on a crime that should be a 10 year sentence but if you fought it in court and lose then the criminal gets off with nothing.
Another aspect is that they are often dealing with a triage situation. They can only handle so many cases a day, the court can only handle so many hearings, and prisons can only handle so many prisoners. It isn't that they are stupid or lazy, though I am sure some are, rather it is more akin to a medical triage, taking the ones they can win and releasing the ones they don't think they can win so they can focus on the bigger or better cases.
Sometimes it isn't the prosecutors at all, it is judges who make strange rulings that tie the hands of the police and the prosecutors into pursuing good cases that are no longer winnable due to case precedent.
Lastly sometimes you just have idiot juries that will believe the dumbest of stuff. I knew a prosecutor who once told me about a burglary case, that the jury didn't convict the burglar because the witness saw the burglar leave the house but didn't see the burglar enter the house. The reasoning was that the statue talks about entering a building so since no one say him enter they said not guilty.
You've never seen Law Abiding Citizen.
All of your "additional factors" should be lower priority than doing what's in the best interest of the community. We've all seen enough cop and lawyer shows to know how the judicial process works. Law&Order and other such shows use real cases to base their shows on.
We live in a state where people are never shocked to hear that a person arrested for a serious crime had 50, 75 or more prior arrests with few convictions. That's not a situation where the evidence isn't sufficient to convict. That shows the state would rather keep repeat offenders on the street under the misguided belief that a conviction and prison sentence does more harm than good.
Hawaii applies the law under a policy of Aloha. Our top courts have admitted to this recently.
-
You've never seen Law Abiding Citizen.
All of your "additional factors" should be lower priority than doing what's in the best interest of the community. We've all seen enough cop and lawyer shows to know how the judicial process works. Law&Order and other such shows use real cases to base their shows on.
We live in a state where people are never shocked to hear that a person arrested for a serious crime had 50, 75 or more prior arrests with few convictions. That's not a situation where the evidence isn't sufficient to convict. That shows the state would rather keep repeat offenders on the street under the misguided belief that a conviction and prison sentence does more harm than good.
Hawaii applies the law under a policy of Aloha. Our top courts have admitted to this recently.
So when someone comments on the military without having been in the military that becomes a problem but you are commenting on the judicial system based on a TV show....
The additional factors I mentioned are part of doing what is the best interest in the community. Do you think prosecutors should take all the cases to trial regardless of how strong they are? Wasting time and money and attempt ingto convict someone who might not be guilty isn't exactly in the best interest of the community.
Most of the time you hear about large numbers of arrests with low conviction rates is because most of those numbers are warrant arrests. So imagine they get arrested for theft and they miss court 3 times and get 3 warrants, their arrest record will show 4 arrests but they only convict them for the theft cases. This is not always the case but it is very often why we hear about numbers like that.
-
So when someone comments on the military without having been in the military that becomes a problem but you are commenting on the judicial system based on a TV show....
** Bogus argument. i'm not commenting on the judicial system as if I'm an expert. I'm saying from a high level perspective, all the factors you listed do not focus on the purpose of a justice system: Justice
The additional factors I mentioned are part of doing what is the best interest in the community. Do you think prosecutors should take all the cases to trial regardless of how strong they are? Wasting time and money and attempt ingto convict someone who might not be guilty isn't exactly in the best interest of the community.
** Prosecutors need to take viable cases to court, not just likely winnable ones. your argument that it would be a waste of time and money and an attempt to convict an innocent person is not a justification for only trying the ones you think you can win. All that's needed is enough evidence to convince a judge or jury the crime occurred and the accused did it. If a prosecutor is bringing charges with insufficient evidence to sustain the charges, then the judge has the right and duty to reprimand the prosecutor. Sometimes judges will dismiss cases from certain prosecutors based on a defense motion that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof, thereby saving the courts and the parties time and money. So, whining about time and money used for cases that might go either way is not a valid justification.
Most of the time you hear about large numbers of arrests with low conviction rates is because most of those numbers are warrant arrests. So imagine they get arrested for theft and they miss court 3 times and get 3 warrants, their arrest record will show 4 arrests but they only convict them for the theft cases. This is not always the case but it is very often why we hear about numbers like that.
** Really? Most of the time? Where is your source for that assertion? You're trying to make an argument that has no actual cases as examples. i know for a fact if you get arrested (for example) for DUI, you are issued a summons after being arraigned. if you don't make that court date and don't bother to ask for a continuance, the judge has several options. An arrest warrant is only one option. Courts use bail, incarceration and monitored house arrest along with other measures to pressure defendants' to attend court.
From what I've seen, judges are more likely to dismiss the charges used for a missed court appearance unless it's habitual. My Ex was placed under a domestic order of protection (not against me -- against the co-worker she was living with after moving out). She violated the order and was arrested and charged with criminal contempt of court. That was NOT listed as a separate case, but rather another charge recorded under the original case. So most reports would not list missed court appearances as separate arrests.
No matter how many warrants you get, they are still part of the same case number, so it's not multiple arrests if you miss court 3 times for the same case. Now if you want to treat each charge as a separate arrest, that's different. In my world, actual charges a person is arrested for are more illustrative of the person's criminal character than the number of times they might have been arrested. That shows there was PC to make the arrest, even if the charges are dropped later. That would also list any bench warrant arrests like you're trying to quibble over.
-
Why don't they follow through and get the people who are not showing up in court?
Not enough people and money? ::) ::) ::)
So just sweep it under the rug? Oh well, he/she/it didn't show up.....let's go lunch.
-
Why don't they follow through and get the people who are not showing up in court?
Not enough people and money? ::) ::) ::)
So just sweep it under the rug? Oh well, he/she/it didn't show up.....let's go lunch.
The real issue is whether or not they have anyone serving failure to appear warrants. it's probably very tough to do on the homeless, so unless they are detained for some other suspected crime, I doubt much time or effort is spent going after them. i assume reports that the courts are backlogged are true, so someone failing to appear for a misdemeanor charge would probably fall through the cracks.
-
There's a retail place that has a lot of thefts named Sugar something. They posted on social media that they sent a letter to the Prosecutors office asking why most of their thefts are not charged. They have video evidence that they mentioned and each police report. They even post the vids on FB SSH so people can help ID the thieves. The reply was basically that the prosecutors are looking for slam dunk cases or they won't waste their time.
Even when my car was broken into and my neighbor ID'd the get away driver and the guy he saw inside my car, he also ID'd a UC who was thrown into the line up. The detective told me that the prosecutors office wanted an easy slam dunk case, so no charges will be brought. They also crashed a stolen car, which is how the police caught them. No charges for that either as none were admitting who was driving the car.
So the point of this and the thread is it pays to be a criminal. Just don't do big enough crimes. Or rob the wrong person. "It's not the crime you do, it's who you do it to that matters".
-
There's a retail place that has a lot of thefts named Sugar something. They posted on social media that they sent a letter to the Prosecutors office asking why most of their thefts are not charged. They have video evidence that they mentioned and each police report. They even post the vids on FB SSH so people can help ID the thieves. The reply was basically that the prosecutors are looking for slam dunk cases or they won't waste their time.
Even when my car was broken into and my neighbor ID'd the get away driver and the guy he saw inside my car, he also ID'd a UC who was thrown into the line up. The detective told me that the prosecutors office wanted an easy slam dunk case, so no charges will be brought. They also crashed a stolen car, which is how the police caught them. No charges for that either as none were admitting who was driving the car.
So the point of this and the thread is it pays to be a criminal. Just don't do big enough crimes. Or rob the wrong person. "It's not the crime you do, it's who you do it to that matters".
i think the point of these examples is the state only wants sure-to-win cases. No effort is put into investigating non-felonies and thefts. Theft is a property crime, and this state doesn't seem to care about them even if you do have video, eye witness and other hard evidence. If the crook doesn't confess/plea, then it's not a given they will be convicted. Of course, if the crime involves theft of a mailbox, that's a different story! :geekdanc:
Also, if you want to commit crimes, just have some idea in advance how to skate -- like having a partner who looks almost like you or setting up a plausible alibi in advance. Seems the smallest detail can derail the prosecution's case.
A lot of cases get decided based on the judge's jury instructions more than on just the facts, ma'am. So, who you get as a judge also factors in.
-
Prosecutors must take long lunches. ;)
"Let's go eat there today...."
"But they're super busy....."
"How's your work load? Yeah, that's what I thought...we get plenty time."
-
** Bogus argument. i'm not commenting on the judicial system as if I'm an expert. I'm saying from a high level perspective, all the factors you listed do not focus on the purpose of a justice system: Justice
Justice is not a science, it is not a paper target where you can tell whether you hit the bullseye. Is it justice if prosecutors takes a case that looks like justified self defense and charges it as a murder even though the will probably lose? Justice for the family of the dead person looks a lot different than justice for the person who was trying to defend himself.
** Prosecutors need to take viable cases to court, not just likely winnable ones. your argument that it would be a waste of time and money and an attempt to convict an innocent person is not a justification for only trying the ones you think you can win. All that's needed is enough evidence to convince a judge or jury the crime occurred and the accused did it. If a prosecutor is bringing charges with insufficient evidence to sustain the charges, then the judge has the right and duty to reprimand the prosecutor. Sometimes judges will dismiss cases from certain prosecutors based on a defense motion that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof, thereby saving the courts and the parties time and money. So, whining about time and money used for cases that might go either way is not a valid justification.
It isn't merely prosecutors wanting easy wins to make them look good. Now I am not saying that isn't ever a factor, a merit based system can create the incentive to juts take the easy wins. Again, in a triage system you have to pick the best ones that you think you can win because you could not physically take them all. It isn't a perfect system, god knows they make mistakes sometimes but it isn't the system you paint of lazy prosecutors only looking for easy wins. An experienced prosecutor knows what tends to work in court in front of a judge and a jury. For example whether a confession will be tossed out or admitted and the whole case hinges on the confession.
** Really? Most of the time? Where is your source for that assertion? You're trying to make an argument that has no actual cases as examples. i know for a fact if you get arrested (for example) for DUI, you are issued a summons after being arraigned. if you don't make that court date and don't bother to ask for a continuance, the judge has several options. An arrest warrant is only one option. Courts use bail, incarceration and monitored house arrest along with other measures to pressure defendants' to attend court.
I have no idea why judges don't bother to convict people for contempt when they don't show up for court, I assume it is because it would take time to prepare a prosecution and then a jury trial for everyone who demanded one. The main goal is to have the person back in court. No offense but I am not going to give you a source. Trust me or don't that's fine but next time you meet a cop try ask them how true that is in their experience.
From what I've seen, judges are more likely to dismiss the charges used for a missed court appearance unless it's habitual. My Ex was placed under a domestic order of protection (not against me -- against the co-worker she was living with after moving out). She violated the order and was arrested and charged with criminal contempt of court. That was NOT listed as a separate case, but rather another charge recorded under the original case. So most reports would not list missed court appearances as separate arrests.
No matter how many warrants you get, they are still part of the same case number, so it's not multiple arrests if you miss court 3 times for the same case. Now if you want to treat each charge as a separate arrest, that's different. In my world, actual charges a person is arrested for are more illustrative of the person's criminal character than the number of times they might have been arrested. That shows there was PC to make the arrest, even if the charges are dropped later. That would also list any bench warrant arrests like you're trying to quibble over.
If you skipped court 3 times on the same case that would be 3 separate warrants and 3 separate offenses for the purposes of counting the arrests even if those 3 are all stemming from the same initial case.
I would caution against arrests as a reliable indicator of PC that the person committed the crime in question. Now if someone has been arrested for theft 10 times there is no way I am believing they are all wrong but it is not that rare to have someone arrested for a crime where PC existed to justify the arrest but it turns out later that they didn't commit a crime (misidentification, misjudgment, false claims, etc)
-
Prosecutors must take long lunches. ;)
"Let's go eat there today...."
"But they're super busy....."
"How's your work load? Yeah, that's what I thought...we get plenty time."
The ones I have met wish that were the case. They often have to work weekends and they don't get paid overtime.
-
Why don't they follow through and get the people who are not showing up in court?
Not enough people and money? ::) ::) ::)
So just sweep it under the rug? Oh well, he/she/it didn't show up.....let's go lunch.
They do, warrants are issued and they get arrested for the warrants.
-
Justice is not a science, it is not a paper target where you can tell whether you hit the bullseye. Is it justice if prosecutors takes a case that looks like justified self defense and charges it as a murder even though the will probably lose? Justice for the family of the dead person looks a lot different than justice for the person who was trying to defend himself.
It isn't merely prosecutors wanting easy wins to make them look good. Now I am not saying that isn't ever a factor, a merit based system can create the incentive to juts take the easy wins. Again, in a triage system you have to pick the best ones that you think you can win because you could not physically take them all. It isn't a perfect system, god knows they make mistakes sometimes but it isn't the system you paint of lazy prosecutors only looking for easy wins. An experienced prosecutor knows what tends to work in court in front of a judge and a jury. For example whether a confession will be tossed out or admitted and the whole case hinges on the confession.
I have no idea why judges don't bother to convict people for contempt when they don't show up for court, I assume it is because it would take time to prepare a prosecution and then a jury trial for everyone who demanded one. The main goal is to have the person back in court. No offense but I am not going to give you a source. Trust me or don't that's fine but next time you meet a cop try ask them how true that is in their experience.
If you skipped court 3 times on the same case that would be 3 separate warrants and 3 separate offenses for the purposes of counting the arrests even if those 3 are all stemming from the same initial case.
I would caution against arrests as a reliable indicator of PC that the person committed the crime in question. Now if someone has been arrested for theft 10 times there is no way I am believing they are all wrong but it is not that rare to have someone arrested for a crime where PC existed to justify the arrest but it turns out later that they didn't commit a crime (misidentification, misjudgment, false claims, etc)
You pretend to lecture me on the definition of justice? I suppose you're the expert on that?
As for asking a cop -- unless that cop has a law degree and years of experience in the courtroom prosecuting and/or defending the accused, your average cop is NOT an expert in the law. They memorize (or look up on their phones and cruiser computers) the code under which a person is suspected of a crime. Beyond having probable cause and department policies, they are NOT the person who knows what a judge wants when issuing warrants.
Unless that cop is a mind reader, and there's only one of those i'm aware of.
-
Unless that cop is a mind reader, and there's only one of those i'm aware of.
I was gonna say, I know 1 cop who's a mind reader. lol.
-
There is no money in prosecution vs. passing anti 2a laws.
Contrary to #immadoctor Hawaii doesn't have a gun problem we have a judicial problem. All these lobbyists and greedy politicians don't do the will of the people or are bound by strong morals.
Check out this fine citizen
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2025/04/15/man-charged-crash-that-killed-15-year-old-girl/
16 priors...
-
There is no money in prosecution vs. passing anti 2a laws.
Contrary to #immadoctor Hawaii doesn't have a gun problem we have a judicial problem. All these lobbyists and greedy politicians don't do the will of the people or are bound by strong morals.
Check out this fine citizen
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2025/04/15/man-charged-crash-that-killed-15-year-old-girl/
16 priors...
In before our legal SMEgle pipes in that traffic convictions are different from criminal convictions -- a totally irrelevant point to make.
Same pattern of escalation allowed by the courts. Why is that person still allowed to drive?
-
You pretend to lecture me on the definition of justice? I suppose you're the expert on that?
As for asking a cop -- unless that cop has a law degree and years of experience in the courtroom prosecuting and/or defending the accused, your average cop is NOT an expert in the law. They memorize (or look up on their phones and cruiser computers) the code under which a person is suspected of a crime. Beyond having probable cause and department policies, they are NOT the person who knows what a judge wants when issuing warrants.
Unless that cop is a mind reader, and there's only one of those i'm aware of.
Believe me or not, that's fine, you seem like you already "knew" the answer anyway before I said otherwise.
The average cop doesn't need to be an expert to read an arrest record side by side with a conviction record.
Cops don't live in vacuums. They make arrests and sometimes the cases get tossed or they lose. They don't just say "oh well", they ask why so they don't make the same mistake. And prosecutors don't want bad cases so they tell cops what not to do and why.
-
In before our legal SMEgle pipes in that traffic convictions are different from criminal convictions -- a totally irrelevant point to make.
Same pattern of escalation allowed by the courts. Why is that person still allowed to drive?
If it is an irrelevant point, why are you making it? You sure seem bothered to come out throwing mud when we were having a cordial conversation.
Driving without a license is a criminal violation BTW.
Why was he still allowed to drive? What kind of question is that, do you think cops are standing around approving every time a person starts a car? You think criminals are going to follow the laws?
-
If it is an irrelevant point, why are you making it? You sure seem bothered to come out throwing mud when we were having a cordial conversation.
Driving without a license is a criminal violation BTW.
Why was he still allowed to drive? What kind of question is that, do you think cops are standing around approving every time a person starts a car? You think criminals are going to follow the laws?
you are not nice person
-
you are not nice person
Tit for tat.
-
If it is an irrelevant point, why are you making it? You sure seem bothered to come out throwing mud when we were having a cordial conversation.
Driving without a license is a criminal violation BTW.
Why was he still allowed to drive? What kind of question is that, do you think cops are standing around approving every time a person starts a car? You think criminals are going to follow the laws?
It depends. Driving without having a valid license from the DMV is one thing -- like never having one issued, driving on an expired license or driving on a suspended/revoked license. On the other hand, you could be driving without your license on you when stopped for a traffic violation. That is usually dismissed if you present your license in court.
Being arrested or cited for a crime or traffic violation is not the same as committing a crime. The latter implies your action is a fact, while the former just implies the cop believed there were probable cause to suspect a crime was committed. Huge distance between the two in terms of which is a fact.
-
This thread is not about driving.Go start your own. Its not hard
-
This thread is not about driving.Go start your own. Its not hard
Simple. It's about EEF. All the threads are about EEF.
-
Thank God, these criminals were trusted to not shoot that lady in the head while holding a gun to her head, all they wanted was the crypto...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CoPC0bGZfY
-
Simple. It's about EEF. All the threads are about EEF.
Says the guy who starts a fight in nearly every thread I post in. Don't make your behavior about me