guess again, trust me one day u'll understand (I truly hope for you sir)
Given my line of work, I'm very much aware and understand all too well how the judicial system works, at least enough to know that ignorance will not help you, as it's something I encounter on a regular basis...
But, you're welcome to live under false pretences, if that's your wish...
Given my line of work, I'm very much aware and understand all too well how the judicial system works, at least enough to know that ignorance will not help you, as it's something I encounter on a regular basis...
But, you're welcome to live under false pretences, if that's your wish...
You seem to be operating under the assumption that this is like a criminal trial.
In that case, there would be, you know, a trial. The people would be innocent until proven guilty. And any lawyer would cite legal precedent that others have done similar things with no ill-effects, which would be the end of the trial.
The idea of this as a legal case in front of a judge is hilarious and renders an image in my mind of a really, really inept local Council...
Prosecution: "We charge that the accused was driving on a Closed Road, at an Unsafe Speed, and thus we have confiscated the accused's vehicle and their driving license"
Judge: "For the record, when was the road closed, and what was the speed?"
Prosecution: "The road was closed a week after the driver drove down it, at 30 miles per hour"
Judge: "Uh, if the road was still open, then it can't be closed... so what was the speed limit posted on signage on the road, at the time?"
Prosecution: "35 miles per hour"
Judge: "So, the road was open at the time, and the driver was traveling at five miles an hour under the posted signage?"
Prosecution: "Well the speed limit was different on other roads Your Honor"
Judge: "I see, and what where they, not that I'm convinced it would make a difference..."
Prosecution: "Elsewhere, it was posted at 40 miles an hour, so Your Honor can clearly see that driving along that road at 30 when it was going to be closed the next week was clearly against the road rules..."
Yeah, I'm sure that this would go really well :rolleyes:
The idea of this as a legal case in front of a judge is hilarious and renders an image in my mind of a really, really inept local Council...
Prosecution: "We charge that the accused was driving on a Closed Road, at an Unsafe Speed, and thus we have confiscated the accused's vehicle and their driving license"
Judge: "For the record, when was the road closed, and what was the speed?"
Prosecution: "The road was closed a week after the driver drove down it, at 30 miles per hour"
Judge: "Uh, if the road was still open, then it can't be closed... so what was the speed limit posted on signage on the road, at the time?"
Prosecution: "35 miles per hour"
Judge: "So, the road was open at the time, and the driver was traveling at five miles an hour under the posted signage?"
Prosecution: "Well the speed limit was different on other roads Your Honor"
Judge: "I see, and what where they, not that I'm convinced it would make a difference..."
Prosecution: "Elsewhere, it was posted at 40 miles an hour, so Your Honor can clearly see that driving along that road at 30 when it was going to be closed the next week was clearly against the road rules..."
Yeah, I'm sure that this would go really well :rolleyes:
...I'm very much aware and understand all too well how the judicial system works ...QUOTE]
oh sorry didnt knew you had trouble with justice... I dont se how relevant it is here and honestly I think we dont care.
probably why you still dont understand what I was refering to when talking about victimes being ignorent...
wasnt the judicial system supposed to teach you to make the difference between victimes & perpetrator before leting you out ?
Dark Side (KDF)
HOUSE OF BORG
"I am FLATULUS of Borg, Resistance if Futile! Prepare to pull my finger!"
You seem to be operating under the assumption that this is like a criminal trial.
In that case, there would be, you know, a trial. The people would be innocent until proven guilty. And any lawyer would cite legal precedent that others have done similar things with no ill-effects, which would be the end of the trial.
Once again, this is the impasse we are at... The existing 'precedent' you keep citing is not closely enough aligned to the current basis of this thread, to validate or invalidate stances, one way or the other...
But, at this point, you're once again deflecting with straw man arguments, by latching onto a single line in response to random comment, which it too took comments out of context...
Since you keep coming out with such blatant straw man examples, I am done...
Comments
Given my line of work, I'm very much aware and understand all too well how the judicial system works, at least enough to know that ignorance will not help you, as it's something I encounter on a regular basis...
But, you're welcome to live under false pretences, if that's your wish...
You seem to be operating under the assumption that this is like a criminal trial.
In that case, there would be, you know, a trial. The people would be innocent until proven guilty. And any lawyer would cite legal precedent that others have done similar things with no ill-effects, which would be the end of the trial.
Prosecution: "We charge that the accused was driving on a Closed Road, at an Unsafe Speed, and thus we have confiscated the accused's vehicle and their driving license"
Judge: "For the record, when was the road closed, and what was the speed?"
Prosecution: "The road was closed a week after the driver drove down it, at 30 miles per hour"
Judge: "Uh, if the road was still open, then it can't be closed... so what was the speed limit posted on signage on the road, at the time?"
Prosecution: "35 miles per hour"
Judge: "So, the road was open at the time, and the driver was traveling at five miles an hour under the posted signage?"
Prosecution: "Well the speed limit was different on other roads Your Honor"
Judge: "I see, and what where they, not that I'm convinced it would make a difference..."
Prosecution: "Elsewhere, it was posted at 40 miles an hour, so Your Honor can clearly see that driving along that road at 30 when it was going to be closed the next week was clearly against the road rules..."
Yeah, I'm sure that this would go really well :rolleyes:
I LOL'd. In my head, they're wearing white wigs.
Once again, this is the impasse we are at... The existing 'precedent' you keep citing is not closely enough aligned to the current basis of this thread, to validate or invalidate stances, one way or the other...
But, at this point, you're once again deflecting with straw man arguments, by latching onto a single line in response to random comment, which it too took comments out of context...
Since you keep coming out with such blatant straw man examples, I am done...
Another poster which has latched onto a single line, from a single post, and taken the entire several pages preceding it completely out of context...