You dont have feee speech if you can be arrested for jokes. (Page 7/18)
ray b AUG 09, 03:22 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
So then why mandate people wear seat belts, but allow people to ride motorcycles?



race drivers use helmets and 5 point belts + a hans device
but we do NOT require all that on a street car
ray b AUG 09, 03:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
The court does not fear the peoples power. That is why trial judges are ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE. That is why laws are made by people ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE.

What the court fears is 12 random people who know nothing about public policy or the impact of laws over ruling the votes of millions of citizens.




o BS the ability to change civil rights had few locals in election support
required fed troops or FBI agents and more then 10 years

we get few fed court votes like NEVER for a judge or prostituting att ...[spelling very intentional ]
most state court judges are semi appointed or somehow never fair elections with ghimmic to the max

so no not millions of citizens but millions of dollars funneled thru lobbyists to make bad laws for special interests
paid to rep's who have reelections as job one two three ect screw the voters if it don't make a buck esp if in the Gop

people know fair and just and far better then the political hacks who get into office and do anything to stay there

you need a real world not high school view or who buys the law and the costs

we do have the largest prison population and a legal system that is screwed up way beyond saving
and lawdogs who do not understand how screwed up it is because they gain from it

fredtoast AUG 09, 03:49 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
So then why mandate people wear seat belts, but allow people to ride motorcycles?




Good question. One argument against outlawing motorcycles completely would be the fact that some poor people can afford a motorcycle but not a car, but I would say the real reason is that judges try to do a balancing act and only limit rights as much as they have to. So allowing motorcycles but requiring helmets is a sort of compromise.

The big thing that courts looked at regarding seat belt laws is that it does not really limit a persons "freedom" in any way to require them to wear a seatbelt. So when they do the "balancing test" there is almost nothing on the side of "limiting freedom" and that makes it easier t justify the law.

[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-09-2023).]

ray b AUG 09, 03:57 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


If the jury does not make the findings of fact then who would? Who would decide which witnesses are telling the truth and which ones are lying? In our system that is all the jury does. They make the findings of fact and plug those findings into the law. They are not qualified to make or change laws.

Who would make the findings of fact in your system if the jury doesn't?



facts like actual innocents seldom matter in plea bargaining as no facts there at all AND NEVER A JURY
what % of cases get to a jury 1% or less in criminal trials

YES THE JURY SAYING NO TO THE STATE IS VERY IMPORTANT

ONE FIX WOULD BE LET A JURY REVIEW EVERY PLEA BARGAIN

THE FACTS AS TO THE LAW ARE THE JUDGES CALL
in fact many a case is about the judge banning facts and saying that defense is not allowed
something I find evil mostly in a power struggle tilted hard in the state/pigs favor from the gitgo

problem now is even with a bad law used to bad intent the jury is not allowed to know they can nullify
a person telling them to nullify will be jailed for doing so
any lawdog who hinted at a nullification will be disbarred

and I think that is 100% wrong
rinselberg AUG 09, 04:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I could be persuaded that the government can impose seat belt requirements for minors... but I don't really see any right that the government has to mandate it. I don't think anyone cares enough, but I'm willing to bet that (in the U.S.) if it made it to the Supreme Court, such a law could be overturned. The "promote the general welfare" clause gets used for a lot of things... and that's the only thing I can think of. Title 49, Statute 579 still makes sense, imposing these safety standards (to a degree) so manufacturers have to offer it. But forcing people to wear them, feels a little bit like restricting freedom.


I would argue that requiring seat belts and shoulder harnesses for the driver and all passengers is for the safety of everyone on the road, including pedestrians and people in other vehicles. Seat belts and shoulder harnesses for the driver and all passengers mitigate against the possibility that a driver could lose all control of the vehicle by preventing his body from being displaced by gravity and acceleration, or by bodily impact from the displacement of an unrestrained passenger during a skid or other sudden change in speed or direction of the vehicle that could be intentional—a sudden evasive maneuver—or unintentional, because of an external impact upon the vehicle or other road conditions, such as hydroplaning.

As far as air bags, I would argue in another way: That the General Welfare requires the installation of air bags to mitigate against the burdens that are imposed upon the general public when people suffer fatalities and injuries in vehicle accidents that would otherwise have been prevented or made less severe (injuries) by the action of air bags. Even though air bags themselves can present a hazard when inexpertly serviced, and even though there have been air bag safety recalls, I would argue the accident statistics remaining in favor of air bags.

What are the burdens imposed upon the general public? The public expenses represented by first responders, of medical evacuations and ambulance services, the otherwise avoidable requirements for hospitalizations and medical treatment, the loss of worker productivity which could impact a business and its other employees and customers in negative ways when "Joe" cannot be working his job because he's in hospital or convalescing (or dead.) And the impacts on the insurance industry, which would otherwise have to cover the damages that could have been mitigated by air bags, by charging higher premiums for the general public.

Even the public burden of traffic slowdowns after vehicle accidents, which would be predictably mitigated to a certain extent when air bag activation mitigates against the severity of the injuries that first responders have to contend with at the scene of an accident.

I rest my case.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-09-2023).]

fredtoast AUG 09, 04:18 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


o BS the ability to change civil rights had few locals in election support
required fed troops or FBI agents and more then 10 years




The ONLY way civil rights were protected was through elected officials making laws and courts enforcing them. There were no independent citizens groups that enforced civil rights without the laws or court systems.

quote
Originally posted by ray b:
we get few fed court votes like NEVER for a judge or prostituting att




Federal judges are appointed by people elected by popular vote.

quote
Originally posted by ray b:
people know fair and just and far better then the political hacks who get into office and do anything to stay there



No they don't. Lots of individuals believe doctors that perform abortions should be charged with murder. Some people think all drugs should be legal while some think you should go to prison a long time for possessing a small amount of marijuana. Some people think people should go to jail for cross dressing. Some people think 13 is the proper age for a girl to legally consent to have sex with an adult. Some people think it is okay for poor people to steal. Some people think all Muslims are a threat America. This country is not only full of clueless people, but these clueless people often do not agree with each other. That is what makes it insane to think that we should let 12 random people change the law. No one would have any idea of how to follow the law because no one would know what the law was.



quote
Originally posted by ray b:
we do have the largest prison population and a legal system that is screwed up way beyond saving
and lawdogs who do not understand how screwed up it is because they gain from it



Criminal defense organizations are some of the ones fighting hardest for prison reform.
fredtoast AUG 09, 04:27 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


facts like actual innocents seldom matter in plea bargaining as no facts there at all AND NEVER A JURY
what % of cases get to a jury 1% or less in criminal trials




No one can be convicted of a felony unless a grand jury hears the states evidence and issues an indictment.

No plea is entered before the defendant is given a chance to review all the evidence the state is going to use against him.

Over 90% of cases end in a plea for 2 reasons

1. The State is forced to dismiss cases where they have no evidence.

2. A defendant gets a lighter sentence if he takes a plea deal than if he goes to trial. The theory is that he is given credit for admitting his guilt and taking responsibilities for his actions. It is like punishing your kids. If they admit they were wrong they get punished lighter than if they try to lie their way out of it.

So after a defendant gets to see all the evidence against him he decides if it is worth the risk of a lot more jail time to try and win at trial. It usually isn't, but there are still quite a few jury trials. Even in the small counties where i work the trial dockets are booked for months. In July I set a case for trial in February.
ray b AUG 09, 04:42 PM
''Federal judges are appointed by people elected by popular vote.''
NO the rump lost the popular vote by 3 million
still got to pack the court with nut con fools
sorry but that did just happen

and 95% of the rump picks were nuts
who will be a threat for years to come
and WILL NEED NULLIFICATION OFTEN IN THE FUTURE

Patrick AUG 09, 04:48 PM

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

So then why mandate people wear seat belts, but allow people to ride motorcycles?



So you'd like even more government control then? Why stop there? Ban bicycles while you're at it. And stairs, ban stairs! More people probably hurt themselves falling down stairs than riding a motorcycle!

No, I'm not looking for a response to the above.

Being mandated to wear seat belts does nothing to impair one's ability to own and/or drive a car. It does not restrict one's "freedom" (except for flying through the windshield or being catapulted from the vehicle), yet it saves society from having to pick up the pieces... financially as well as literally.


quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

Not everyone is smart enough to buckle up... and those are the people that these laws were enacted for. It saves the rest of us from having to shovel them off the blacktop.
ray b AUG 09, 04:53 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
No one can be convicted of a felony unless a grand jury hears the states evidence and issues an indictment.

No plea is entered before the defendant is given a chance to review all the evidence the state is going to use against him.

Over 90% of cases end in a plea for 2 reasons

1. The State is forced to dismiss cases where they have no evidence.

2. A defendant gets a lighter sentence if he takes a plea deal than if he goes to trial. The theory is that he is given credit for admitting his guilt and taking responsibilities for his actions. It is like punishing your kids. If they admit they were wrong they get punished lighter than if they try to lie their way out of it.

So after a defendant gets to see all the evidence against him he decides if it is worth the risk of a lot more jail time to try and win at trial. It usually isn't, but there are still quite a few jury trials. Even in the small counties where i work the trial dockets are booked for months. In July I set a case for trial in February.



A GRAND JURY / STAR CHAMBER has no balance as a totally state power show
and can and has been use to indict and convict a ham sandwich

btw the grand jury can investigate and it has subpoena powers.
Under Florida law, a grand jury indictment is only necessary for someone to be tried for a capital offense.
Otherwise a state prosecutor may file what's known as an information.

just an other way to cheat for the pig


one person vs the state
totally fair ?
or explains why we have so many in prisons

why the balance is needed
why nullification is needed but not known or used in most cases