I don't think you can set a specific number and draw the line. It is a case by case basis looking at the totality of the circumstances.

How many rounds can you shoot at someone in self defense before it turns to murder?

I think exaggerating the size or a property by a factor of 3 is way beyond reasonable. If you think that is reasonable then we disagree.

So 2.999999 is acceptable then right?



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So 2.999999 is acceptable then right?



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You want a line where none can reasonably be drawn without creating a massive bureaucracy.

I suppose though you could make a sliding fine scale. $100 for every % you understate  the size of your property. (for example)

You want a line where none can reasonably be drawn without creating a massive bureaucracy.

I suppose though you could make a sliding fine scale. $100 for every % you understate  the size of your property. (for example)

So ur claim cannot be proved. Got it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So ur claim cannot be proved. Got it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I didn't make any claim needing to be proven. I explained that reasonableness should be used as the guide.

I even gave you a way of making a punishment that was proportional to the offense, like a speeding ticket.

Your argument isn't even a serious one. If you had a broken speedometer in your car it would be fair for a judge to give you a break for doing 30 in a 25 school zone, but if you were doing 75 in a school zone then a judge should give you the same break?

I didn't make any claim needing to be proven. I explained that reasonableness should be used as the guide.

I even gave you a way of making a punishment that was proportional to the offense, like a speeding ticket.

Your argument isn't even a serious one. If you had a broken speedometer in your car it would be fair for a judge to give you a break for doing 30 in a 25 school zone, but if you were doing 75 in a school zone then a judge should give you the same break?

Nice goal post moving. I said what does the law say? 1 mph or 70mph is still a law being broken.

Now u talking about getting breaks.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Deutch bank exec says trump has the strongest personal balance sheet hes ever seen. Hes a good opportunity.

Guess he never verified and just believes everything he sees on paper. Brb looking for my handwritten receipt that says i have $200,000,000,000,000 in 1 of their checking accounts. No need verify right?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Nice goal post moving. I said what does the law say? 1 mph or 70mph is still a law being broken.

Now u talking about getting breaks.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Nuance just swooshed you

Nuance just swooshed you

Still goal post moving. Hahahhaha

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Oops Deutch bank also said they lowered trumps worth by 50% when factoring in the loan.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Oops Deutch bank also said they lowered trumps worth by 50% when factoring in the loan.

They also offered to loan Trump even more money than he requested. 

They testified Trump always paid his loans either according to the terms of sometimes ahead of time.

Nice goal post moving. I said what does the law say? 1 mph or 70mph is still a law being broken.

Now u talking about getting breaks.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

one thing most laws don't take into account is intent.
Legally 1 mph over posted limit ( posted limits are arbitrary, decided by engineers like me that ALWAYS take the safe side) is illegal
however did you intend to hurt someone? Probably not.
Laws are supposed to be guidelines not absolute.
Cops that make them absolute are assholes.
That is why nobody likes or trusts them anymore.
We need more Mayberry Sheriffs and fewer Barney Fifes.
 

one thing most laws don't take into account is intent.
Legally 1 mph over posted limit ( posted limits are arbitrary, decided by engineers like me that ALWAYS take the safe side) is illegal
however did you intend to hurt someone? Probably not.
Laws are supposed to be guidelines not absolute.
Cops that make them absolute are assholes.
That is why nobody likes or trusts them anymore.
We need more Mayberry Sheriffs and fewer Barney Fifes.
 

Traffic laws are a different breed from almost all criminal laws.  Most are treated as civil infractions.  Even insurance companies are less concerned with the lawlessness and only focus on the amount of money you cost them already and whether they can risk you costing them more later.

Most insurance companies used to track you by the points the state issues against your license, with certain increases in premiums wih so many points in a given period. 

in fact, traffic laws have various categories, too.  Speeding or recklessness is serious, but an equipment infraction (no safety inspection, dark window tint, headlight out, tires too wide, etc.) are often treated as a much less serious ticket.

Since we know traffic laws have evolved from being about safety to simply revenue generation for the jurisdiction, It's best to have all your registration, inspection, insurance, tags, stickers and license in order to avoid giving any Cop that stops you cause to see you as anything other than law-abiding.  It amazes me how many people with warrants get caught because of expired tags.

So, as far as intent is concerned, it's a non-issue in traffic court.  However, that doesn't mean you can't present a "guilty with a reason" defense.  A friend convinced the judge that he was just trying to move right into an exit lane, but a huge line of traffic refused to let him in.  He saw a sizable gap ahead, so he sped up to get in line.  That's when the cops lasered him.  The judge bought it and dismissed the ticket.  The cop who was in the courtroom was pissed!  And to piss him off more, my friend asked the judge where he could make a donation to the policeman's assistance fund in the amount of his fine!  LOL!!

So, while the Cops may not care about intent or justifications, you do have the option to try and get a judge to hear it -- away from the tension and stress of a traffic stop next to a busy roadway.

Traffic laws are a different breed from almost all criminal laws.  Most are treated as civil infractions.  Even insurance companies are less concerned with the lawlessness and only focus on the amount of money you cost them already and whether they can risk you costing them more later.

Most insurance companies used to track you by the points the state issues against your license, with certain increases in premiums wih so many points in a given period. 

in fact, traffic laws have various categories, too.  Speeding or recklessness is serious, but an equipment infraction (no safety inspection, dark window tint, headlight out, tires too wide, etc.) are often treated as a much less serious ticket.

Since we know traffic laws have evolved from being about safety to simply revenue generation for the jurisdiction, It's best to have all your registration, inspection, insurance, tags, stickers and license in order to avoid giving any Cop that stops you cause to see you as anything other than law-abiding.  It amazes me how many people with warrants get caught because of expired tags.

So, as far as intent is concerned, it's a non-issue in traffic court.  However, that doesn't mean you can't present a "guilty with a reason" defense.  A friend convinced the judge that he was just trying to move right into an exit lane, but a huge line of traffic refused to let him in.  He saw a sizable gap ahead, so he sped up to get in line.  That's when the cops lasered him.  The judge bought it and dismissed the ticket.  The cop who was in the courtroom was pissed!  And to piss him off more, my friend asked the judge where he could make a donation to the policeman's assistance fund in the amount of his fine!  LOL!!

So, while the Cops may not care about intent or justifications, you do have the option to try and get a judge to hear it -- away from the tension and stress of a traffic stop next to a busy roadway.

So either radaring cops wake up wanting to issue speeding tickets or they are ordered to find people to issue said tickets too.

Not like HI has a traffic problem where people should drive faster. Lame ass HI speed limits of 45-60mph.

Too bad cops cant ticket someone for driving too slow. Like 18 on kapiolani blvd thats 35mph with no cars in front of them.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

one thing most laws don't take into account is intent.
Legally 1 mph over posted limit ( posted limits are arbitrary, decided by engineers like me that ALWAYS take the safe side) is illegal
however did you intend to hurt someone? Probably not.
Laws are supposed to be guidelines not absolute.
Cops that make them absolute are assholes.
That is why nobody likes or trusts them anymore.
We need more Mayberry Sheriffs and fewer Barney Fifes.
 

Most, if not all criminal laws, (and I believe traffic laws as well but would have to double check) list a state of mind and "intentionally" is one of the states of mind.

I agree with the second half though, discretion is a very important tool for police to use, try to tailor the action to the offense and the situation. I have seen many times where an officer could have chosen a less punitive action and not doing so, in the end, makes their job harder because they are, in part, creating their own opponents.

Most, if not all criminal laws, (and I believe traffic laws as well but would have to double check) list a state of mind and "intentionally" is one of the states of mind.

I agree with the second half though, discretion is a very important tool for police to use, try to tailor the action to the offense and the situation. I have seen many times where an officer could have chosen a less punitive action and not doing so, in the end, makes their job harder because they are, in part, creating their own opponents.

 HRS134

HRS134

Every law that I know of either explicitly states "intent" as an element of the crime within the statute (knowingly, willfully, intentionally, etc.), or it excludes intent by default as not applicable to the charges.

Case in point: the axiom "ignorance of the law is no excuse."  Meaning, you can't use as a defense, "I didn't mean to break the law, because i didn't know it was illegal."

So, no, it's the opposite of what the "expert" here says.  Unless stated, intent is NOT an element of the crime -- ESPECIALLY traffic infractions. 

Does anyone really believe, "I didn't mean to go 15 over the limit," is a viable defense?

Every law that I know of either explicitly states "intent" as an element of the crime within the statute (knowingly, willfully, intentionally, etc.), or it excludes intent by default as not applicable to the charges.

Case in point: the axiom "ignorance of the law is no excuse."  Meaning, you can't use as a defense, "I didn't mean to break the law, because i didn't know it was illegal."

So, no, it's the opposite of what the "expert" here says.  Unless stated, intent is NOT an element of the crime -- ESPECIALLY traffic infractions. 

Does anyone really believe, "I didn't mean to go 15 over the limit," is a viable defense?

Lets see how he weasels his way out of this one. "Most, if not all laws..." was his words. Had he left out "if not all laws" part, then he covered his tracks.  But then gain HRS134 is only 1 section, but it's a lot of subsections. He would then say see, it's only 1 of thousands of laws.

Every law that I know of either explicitly states "intent" as an element of the crime within the statute (knowingly, willfully, intentionally, etc.), or it excludes intent by default as not applicable to the charges.

Case in point: the axiom "ignorance of the law is no excuse."  Meaning, you can't use as a defense, "I didn't mean to break the law, because i didn't know it was illegal."

So, no, it's the opposite of what the "expert" here says.  Unless stated, intent is NOT an element of the crime -- ESPECIALLY traffic infractions. 

Does anyone really believe, "I didn't mean to go 15 over the limit," is a viable defense?

What part of "I have to double check" don't you understand?

You are really going to try and get gotcha points on a statement I made where I said I wasn't sure about one aspect and would have to check? Surely you can find better things to mentally masturbate over.

What part of "I have to double check" don't you understand?

You are really going to try and get gotcha points on a statement I made where I said I wasn't sure about one aspect and would have to check? Surely you can find better things to mentally masturbate over.

AANNNNDDDD HERE IT IS!!!!!!!!!! Hi Newsom.