You dont have feee speech if you can be arrested for jokes. (Page 3/18)
82-T/A [At Work] AUG 04, 07:47 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:

Image how much better off we would be if we actually had an "attorney" that knew a Circuit Court from a DCA.

I don't know how it is in your benighted little corner of Appalachia, but here in Florida our Circuit Courts only have persuasive authority with our DCAs.

When you arrogantly and loudly strutted into this forum weeks ago it never once occurred to you that you might not be the only one with a JD here......assuming that you actually have earned a JD and actively practice law.

You also certainly haven't been reluctant to infer, and even claim, that others here do not possess the "marvelous intellect" and education that you continually claim to have, which is astonishing considering how "larval" your tenure here is and consequently how deficient your knowledge of individual member's academic and professional achievement and experience.

A prudent duck would have attempted to get a good measure of the size of the pond and the other ducks before deciding that he is the "big duck" in it.





There is so much more nonsense here with his sophomoric attempt to explain law here. This is the actual case in which he's referring:
https://efactssc-public.flc...20INITIAL20BRIEF.pdf


Key facts in this case:

- First, Owens had been driving reckless and erratically, and was the reason for him being pulled over in the first place ... e.g., as I stated, "it must more generally be connected with a crime"

- Second, the appeal states: "such use while driving would still support the offense of driving while intoxicated; thus, regardless of whether marijuana becomes decriminalized for recreational use, the smell of the burning substance will continue to provide probable cause for a search of a vehicle." Owens was driving his car, and was pulled over. My car was stopped, in a private business, and I called the police, and I was not behind the wheel when they arrived. All on private property.

- Third, the appeal states: Owens submitted a "guilty plea to the offense of possession of methamphetamine." I.E. he was guilty of a crime, not just of reckless driving for which he was pulled over for, but also had a DWI, and possession of narcotics. None of this applies to me, because for 1, I've never used illegal drugs in my entire life, ever. See item 1, and item 2. There was no crime, they found nothing, and I was on private property.


Learn how to IRAC Fred...

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-04-2023).]

ray b AUG 04, 09:35 AM
qualified immunity is not a law any one voted for

btw it also is used for more then street cops

judges prostituting att all kinds of gov officials claim it

it is WRONG THERE SHOULD BE NO IMMUNITY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS BY OFFICIALS

OUR TRUSTED GOV WORKERS SHOULD BE UNDER THE LAW NEVER OVER IT

ANY AND EVERY TIME THEY VIOLATE ANY ONES RIGHTS SUBJECT TO THE LAW

any one claiming qualified immunity is a PIG
fredtoast AUG 04, 10:31 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:
Image how much better off we would be if we actually had an "attorney" that knew a Circuit Court from a DCA.

I don't know how it is in your benighted little corner of Appalachia, but here in Florida our Circuit Courts only have persuasive authority with our DCAs.

When you arrogantly and loudly strutted into this forum weeks ago it never once occurred to you that you might not be the only one with a JD here......assuming that you actually have earned a JD and actively practice law.

You also certainly haven't been reluctant to infer, and even claim, that others here do not possess the "marvelous intellect" and education that you continually claim to have, which is astonishing considering how "larval" your tenure here is and consequently how deficient your knowledge of individual member's academic and professional achievement and experience.

A prudent duck would have attempted to get a good measure of the size of the pond and the other ducks before deciding that he is the "big duck" in it.





Here is how legal argument work. I post case law to support my claim. If you disagree then you post caselaw to prove that I am wrong.

Courts are not impressed with squealing.

So I will just wait here for you to post case law to prove that I am wrong.
fredtoast AUG 04, 10:36 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
- Second, the appeal states: "such use while driving would still support the offense of driving while intoxicated; thus, regardless of whether marijuana becomes decriminalized for recreational use, the smell of the burning substance will continue to provide probable cause for a search of a vehicle." Owens was driving his car, and was pulled over. My car was stopped, in a private business, and I called the police, and I was not behind the wheel when they arrived. All on private property.




Does not matter if your car was parked. If you were drunk or high you could have gotten a DUI. You do not have to be driving to get a DUI. You just have to be "in physical control" of a vehicle that was driven on a public road or parking lot. Usually this just means in possession of the keys.

Besides, back when you had this issue marijuana was not even legal to smoke in a car parked on private property. So officer would have had probable cause.

82-T/A [At Work] AUG 04, 10:54 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

qualified immunity is not a law any one voted for

btw it also is used for more then street cops

judges prostituting att all kinds of gov officials claim it

it is WRONG THERE SHOULD BE NO IMMUNITY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS BY OFFICIALS

OUR TRUSTED GOV WORKERS SHOULD BE UNDER THE LAW NEVER OVER IT

ANY AND EVERY TIME THEY VIOLATE ANY ONES RIGHTS SUBJECT TO THE LAW

any one claiming qualified immunity is a PIG




On this, we completely agree Ray... completely.

"Executive Privilege" is not defined anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and Trump should not be able to use this, nor any president (including Nixon's view that he didn't have to turn in the tapes). I also agree with you that no public official has the benefit (or should have the benefit) of "immunity" either. Public servants are to be held to a HIGHER standard, as they are directly in a position where their actions can have a direct impact on those whom they represent.

The disagreement we have is on whether or not what is being claimed as executive privilege is in fact criminal or not.
fredtoast AUG 04, 10:56 AM
"Qualified Immunity" is a tricky issue. In general Republicans support it while Democrats think it should be more limited.

It does not apply to cases against institutions like a Sheriff's Department. It only applies to individuals like specific Sheriff's deputies.

It usually covers an individual performing "official actions".

Right now pretty much all courts recognize some form of "qualified immunity" and the debate is over where to draw the line. Basically they are using a SUBJECTIVE test that says "you have no immunity if you do something really, really bad".

It is a tough issue to come up with a clear objective test for courts to follow. But some level is needed to prevent public officials from being harassed by frivolous lawsuits.

[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-04-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] AUG 04, 11:01 AM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
Does not matter if your car was parked. If you were drunk or high you could have gotten a DUI. You do not have to be driving to get a DUI. You just have to be "in physical control" of a vehicle that was driven on a public road or parking lot. Usually this just means in possession of the keys.

Besides, back when you had this issue marijuana was not even legal to smoke in a car parked on private property. So officer would have had probable cause.




I'm not ignorant to what you're trying to do here... so I will repeat myself so you don't intentionally disparage me. Never in my life have I ever used illegal drugs. I've never been given a DWI, a DUI, or had drugs on my person, ever convicted, charged, or assumed. I've passed a full-scope lifestyle polygraph in service to the country attesting that I've never used drugs in my life.

This incident was the police claiming they smelled marijuana in order to use it as a bargaining chip to call it a night and get his friends off the hook. He made assumptions that because I was in a nice car (or at least what he assumed it was a nice car), and that I was clean-cut... that I would likely have drugs in my car, as most teens in that area probably would. My car was off, and parked in a parking space of private property, and with me out of the car by the time they got there ... and I called them there.
fredtoast AUG 04, 11:03 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
On this, we completely agree Ray... completely.

"Executive Privilege" is not defined anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and Trump should not be able to use this, nor any president (including Nixon's view that he didn't have to turn in the tapes). I also agree with you that no public official has the benefit (or should have the benefit) of "immunity" either. Public servants are to be held to a HIGHER standard, as they are directly in a position where their actions can have a direct impact on those whom they represent.

The disagreement we have is on whether or not what is being claimed as executive privilege is in fact criminal or not.




"Immunity" is different from "privilege". "Immunity" means a person can not be prosecuted while "privilege" means a person does not have to disclose information.

"Immunity" needs to be very limited. But "privilege" needs to remain in place with a few limitations. Many very important and knowledgeable people, and especially foreign ambassadors and heads of state, would not even talk to the President if they knew everything they said would be public record.
fredtoast AUG 04, 11:31 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

He made assumptions that because I was in a nice car (or at least what he assumed it was a nice car), and that I was clean-cut... that I would likely have drugs in my car,




Based on all the academic studies and court cases I am familiar with regarding police profiling, they never target clean cut white people in nice cars.
82-T/A [At Work] AUG 04, 12:03 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:

Based on all the academic studies and court cases I am familiar with regarding police profiling, they never target clean cut white people in nice cars.




"never target clean cut white people in nice cars"

There you go again... completely changing the argument... having nothing to do with the discussion. I wasn't targeted, I called them.