| 0 |
Subject: Criminalization of Everything
Posted by: Myboyjack
- [121159118] Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 22:20
I often remark how American society increasingly expects the Court system, and specifically the criminal court system to fix every minute problem that comes up. far too many things have been criminalized. I get people all the time trying to file complaints because a neigbor called them a bad name or because kids riding a bike down the street make their dog nervous. I've had teachers try to file assault complaints against 8 year olds.
But this lady absolutely takes the cake. You have to listen to the audio file to believe it. Essentially, some soccer mom call 911 and demands a deputy sherriff come to Carl, Jr's and enforce her right to have her bacon cheeseburger made properly. OMG.
When did we come to believe that every time we are wronged that a crime has been committed. People get really mad at me and act like "[I] don't want to do my job" because I want prosecute somebody for "slandering" them, for instance. I had a teacher lecture (actually, attempt to) me on how the system was broke because I dismissed her theft charge agains tone of her middle school students. he had allegedly "stolen" a pencil from under a table in her classroom.
Anyway, listen to the audio file. You will LYAO. |
| 1 | Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 22:26
|
BTW, the worst over blown "crime" that has been ramped up in recent times is the "theft by deception" scam. Basically, Wal-mart, etc., have convinced legislatures to criminalize, absolutely, the act of "bouncing a check". Some poor sap buys a $300.00 TV by check, doesn't balance his account correctly, and he's a felon - even if he offers to give the TV back. Wal-Mart will "let it go" if you pay them a $200.00 fee. Ugly.
|
| 2 | Tree
ID: 212401018
Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 22:30
|
weren't some girls arrested or fined or sued or something for baking and delivering cookies to one of their neighbors?
|
| 3 | Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 22:32
|
Yeah i tihnk some guy and daughter were arrested in NYC for selling Girl Scout Cookies.
|
| 4 | Baldwin
ID: 241292815
Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 22:38
|
Amazing. See if she believed in the free market she'd suport their competion. Instead she's bought into the victimhood culture.
|
| 5 | Tree
ID: 212401018
Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 22:42
|
actually, i think it's the "me me me" culture...you oughta know all about that Baldwin...
|
| 6 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719
Fri, Apr 01, 2005, 01:36
|
Wow, that is f*cking great to hear a prosecutor who also balks at the extortion these major chains have been perpetrating via the "civil fee". I get a lot of clients who don't speak English and they are lead to believe that they will face jail if they don't pay the $250.00 civil fee often for less than $20 of shoplifting.
Without shame.
|
| 7 | sarge33rd
ID: 322471717
Fri, Apr 01, 2005, 08:52
|
cannot begin to recall the specifics, but quite a few years ago (80's I think?), I remember reading of a fellow here in TX who had bounced over a 10 yr period or so, 3 checks at a grocer. With the 3rd, he fell under one of those infamous "3-strikes" laws and was imprisoned for felony theft. Sentence was on the order of 25 yrs if memory serves.
I too have often wondred, what ever happened to personal responsibility? Also in the 80's, some gal in Iowa while driving in January hit an ice patch on a county road. Slid into the ditch and did some 5k dmage to her car. She sued the state......and WON, 25k. Claimed the state was negligent in its maintenance by allowing ice to form. In fvcking January in the midwest.....duh.
|
| 8 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Fri, Apr 01, 2005, 13:20
|
I get a lot of clients who don't speak English and they are lead to believe that they will face jail if they don't pay the $250.00 civil fee often for less than $20 of shoplifting. Zen
Yes the Wal-Mart $200.00 shoplifting fee, which they've got state legislatures to go along with is another smam. They send the letter out before they even file the criminal charge. I don't usually handle the prosecution of shoplifting charges unless I'm covering for someone else, but when I do and find that someone has paid that outrageous thing, I always dismiss. One of these days I'm going to get just the right fact set and file charges against Wal-Mart for "Use of criminal process to effect a civil purpose" which is a crime in the Commonwealth. It's clearly what the do.
However, at least shoplifting is a real crime that should be prosectued. People are now prosecuted for bouncing checks without the demonstration of any intent to steal. Prosecution's only burden is to show that a check bounced, Here, the crdit card companies have extended the crime to the bouncing of checks on accounts - that a real travesty.
|
| 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 562251410
Fri, Apr 01, 2005, 14:00
|
One of these days I'm going to get just the right fact set and file charges against Wal-Mart for "Use of criminal process to effect a civil purpose" which is a crime in the Commonwealth.
Get those s.o.b.'s MBJ. I cant friggin stand wally-world.
|
| 10 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 09:30
|
Sarge: "I too have often wondred, what ever happened to personal responsibility?"
Liberalism, the entitlement mentality.
|
| 11 | Timing
ID: 460272520
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 12:53
|
When can we criminalize stupid slogans? I'm all for that.
|
| 12 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 12:57
|
not true CCP. It was the "conservative" Bush who approved every spending bill to hit his desk, the "conservative" congress who tried to direct the courts findings,...
Nice catch phrase, to blame "liberalism", but it isnt right. Wal-Mart is hardly a bastion of liberal thought, yet it is they who feel "entitled" to impose a civil penalty of $200+ in lieu of their filing criminal charges.
Throw the words out however you like. They are meaningless. It isnt a socio-political mindset which causes a person in the midwest to feel entitled to sue a state when ice is on the roads. Its what another poster said, "the me me me" mentality. None I have ever seen, are more focused on "me me me", than your well-to-do Republican.
|
| 13 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 13:01
|
I'd drink to that Timing, but then...it''s been said that I'll drink to most anything, so might not count for much. :-)
|
| 14 | katietx
ID: 2831139
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 13:25
|
None I have ever seen, are more focused on "me me me", than your well-to-do Republican.
Whew, was a afraid I'd get lumped in there, but no danger of that! LOL
Does this mean that Baldwin's a "well-to-do Republican?" After all its always about him, isn't it? ;-)
|
| 15 | Timing
ID: 460272520
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 14:05
|
Baldwin, why do you chide a culture of victimhood, as you call it, while fully supporting the culture of victimization inherent in free market systems? Sounds like you're just longing for the days of Rockefeller and Carnegie. The past is over man, get on with it.
|
| 16 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 15:28
|
Sarge: "Nice catch phrase, to blame "liberalism", but it isnt right. Wal-Mart is hardly a bastion of liberal thought, yet it is they who feel "entitled" to impose a civil penalty of $200+ in lieu of their filing criminal charges."
You bounce checks, you pay the fine. Do you have any idea how much of a pain in @ss it is for a corporation to deal with bounced checks?
I work for a Fortune 500 company in the accounting department. Our receiveables personnel spends a good deal of time working with our bank and the deadbeats (these are companies/small businesses you wouldn't think to bounce checks, but they do anyway) to collect money from bounced checks. Part of the $200 I'm sure goes toward covering the costs of recovering the money.
A person who is self made and relies on themselves is more apt to take responsibility for themself. The left-wing establishment always blames the other guy, that it's never the supposed "victims" fault.
See the link I put in the SS Reform thread for some blathering from Ted Kennedy about how people are "victims" of credit cards.
The entitlement people around here take no responsibility in anything because everything is always the government/evil corporation/bad teacher/my stupid neighbors fault.
|
| 17 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 15:46
|
A) civil penalty in lieu of criminal process, is not the purview of corporate america. Yes I know what a pain bounced checks are. big friggin deal. they are a part of doing busines. dont want to deal with it? stay out of business. simple really.
b) please with your incessant and ever ongoing, corporate apologies. enron ring a bell? tyco? viacomm? worldcom? what possible apologies are you going to spew forth for those bastards?
|
| 18 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 15:47
|
B) should read...please cease with...
typo
|
| 19 | Timing
ID: 460272520
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 16:01
|
It's a pain in the ass for American consumers and tax payers to deal with deadbeat corporations too but nobody's making an idiotic entitlement argument about it, much less one with as many weak generalities as yours.
|
| 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 16:18
|
A person who is self made and relies on themselves is more apt to take responsibility for themself. The left-wing establishment always blames the other guy, that it's never the supposed "victims" fault.
I could swear Baldwin posted a cut-n-paste job from the biatch AC sounded awfully similar to this. Or maybe its just that this seems to be the "standard" Republican line. *shrug* Hard to tell.
Is there a bigger "I am entitled to..." than corporate America? Nope. Every 10 years or so, ABC Corp pits city vs city in the once-per-decade grand give-away, to see who will yield tax abatements for the longest period of time. Or who will build FOR that corporate entity, a new state-of-the-art facility. Then they fire everybody who has been with them for the past 10 years, move everything to another locale and start fresh. New jobs!!!! Yea right. Until the tax abatements end.
Heres a rather novel idea for you "self made" capitalist types....how about YOU reinvest in your company? Instead of profit taking and boat buying, put some of that money to work on capital improvements. Now, wouldnt THAT be a new way for corporate america to act?
|
| 21 | Stuck in the 60s
Dude
ID: 274132811
Sun, Apr 03, 2005, 21:46
|
CCD: Can't tell you how much I bleed for the corporations who have to deal with the bounced check. Try looking at what faces the poor SOB who does the bouncing. First of all, his bank hits him with a stiff fee that many deduct right from his checking account, causing later checks to bounce even if he's figured out his error in the meantime. Then, the "aggrieved" corporation hits him with its charges. If it's Wal-Mart, that's even better!
Sorry it's such a PIA for you guys.
Don
|
| 22 | katietx
ID: 13314315
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 11:44
|
Here's a novel idea...keep your checkbook straight and you won't have to worry about it.
Very soon, if not already in many areas, the idea of "floating" a check in hopes it won't clear until you make a deposit will be a thing of the past.
While I think what WalMart does is borderline criminal (not able to prove this btw), the company I work for doesn't charge an "extra" fee for a bounced check, although one bounce and people cannot ever write another check. System kicks it right out.
|
| 23 | sarge33rd
ID: 322471717
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 12:10
|
a very small percentage of the population katie, deliberately bounces checks. Most are the result of an honest error. Not some sinister intent. To treat an honest mistake as a criminal act, is IMHO, the truly criminal act.
|
| 24 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 12:16
|
Banks don't help, either, by trying to clear the largest check first in any particular batch.
Remember, checks clear overnight--the banks know the amounts of the charges (including checks) and the amount in your account. If you have, say, $200 in your account and checks for $205, $10, and $5, the bank will always try to clear the largest one first. Often they will pay the check and charge you a charge, ensuring that the other two checks will also get a bounced check charge each. But if they'd simply charged the smaller ones first, they would have been paid with no trouble.
Banks make a ton of money off bounced check charges, and count on those fees.
|
| 25 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 5246912
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 13:50
|
You bounce checks, you pay the fine. Do you have any idea how much of a pain in @ss it is for a corporation to deal with bounced checks?
Wahhhhhh...typical though, coming from you, bcp. Guess you've never made a mistake balancing your checkbook or had the bank process it's debits literally hours before crediting direct deposit. My bank (a place I've done business for 20+ years, and have had DD for the past 8) processed a check (that I wrote the previous Friday) one Wednesday morning four and a half hours before my paycheck hit my account. I ended up paying an extra $125 after all was said and done for my motorcycle that month - $5 less than the actual payment, all because of a timing issue.
I agree whole heartedly with Stuck on this one. I don't feel at all for the corporations (who receive as much welfare as any person in this country) who stick it to the average american in the form of "fees" and "charges".
Here's a question: where does the money go? On more than one occasion I've run into my account being debited on a Friday, and the money not showing in the recipients account until Monday. Wheres the money over the weekend? Who's making money (in the form of interest) off of these transactions?
I do as much business as humanly possible in cash only. F*ck convienience fees, handling charges, bank ATM fees, check cashing charges (Key is the worst - even if a check is drawn on Key bank account, they have a $5 dollar cashing fee if you don't have an account there!) Don't even get me started on how crooked credit card fees are.
Cry me a river, bcp. Even as a responsible citizen I pay thru the nose.
|
| 26 | Baldwin
ID: 241292815
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 14:17
|
New low for you Sox.
|
| 27 | Tree
ID: 76471215
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 15:12
|
welcome to the club sox. i hit a new low for Baldwin nearly every day. in fact, i feel like i got little accomplished if i didn't hit a new low for baldwin in that particular day.
he is, remember, the arbiter of all. Jesus Christ among men, if you will.
|
| 28 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 21:01
|
Sox: You wrote a check you didn't have the money for.
You are a fricking deadbeat, a loser, a piece of s#it. Tell me something I don't already know.
It's not my fault nor is it Walmart's fault you can't add and subtract.
Take a class, go to school, learn some math. Even cheaper, buy a calculator. You might want to pay cash for it so you don't float a $5 check.
You don't like the way your bank handles things? Find another bank you mentally challenged fool.
|
| 29 | Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 21:11
|
It's a shame, but this thread is about to get nuked. It's gotten to the point where these boards should be nuked because of a few idiots and a few trolls.
|
| 30 | Timing
ID: 460272520
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 21:56
|
Whoa... that was dumb.
|
| 31 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 22:08
|
re 28; see 26. just change the last 3 letters.
|
| 32 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 22:09
|
and btw, no...there would be no m, nor b nor j in the ammended final 3 letters. :)
|
| 33 | katietx
ID: 4637420
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 22:09
|
Re: 30...no, typical
|
| 34 | Baldwin
ID: 241292815
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 22:54
|
You go as far over the line as #25 and you are going to get #28. It takes a huge willpower not to respond in kind.
|
| 35 | rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 23:13
|
RE #23 sarge:
Could you please provide some kind of link, or study or some baisis in fact for that opinion?
I work in the collection and credit arena, and from personal experience, I disagree that Most are the result of an honest error
|
| 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 23:19
|
that rfs, is because the ones you see, were by and large not caused by honest error. The ones caused by honest error, are simply pd and everyone moves one.
|
| 37 | rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 23:32
|
OK... do you have a link to support item #36? It's Ok if it's just your opinion, but I'll share why I think I disagree and why I think I "see" more than you think I do.
I do bad check collections for the largets single grocery store chain in AZ. We're talking groceries here-- a necessity of life. I get them as soon as they bounce-- there is no going into the store and saying oopsie daisy, I owe you $15.95-- I get all of them, even the ones where hubby went to the ATM and wifey wrote acheck for weekly food. I can tell you from my staff speaking to 10,000+ [alleged] bad check writers, that far and away the greatest number of bad checks are due to
1) no money, need the item(s), too bad, got no money, not gonna pay you, how can I pay you, I got no bus fare.... 50%.
2) Written on CLOSED acconts-- how can this be an "honest" mistake. Some have bene closed for over 1YR! 25%
3) fraud (stolen checks) 15%.
4) bookkeeping mistakes (and they almost always make good with a few days!) 10%.
If I get ALL of them, why don't I have 1000's of these honest, just-made-a-simple mistake grocery customers paying back their charges (they did keep and eat the food by the way)? If I didn, I'b be getting a huge bonus every quarter.
Also, if these were so called honest mistakes, why aren't thee folsk going to their banks and making good on the check after the fact? The money would eventually trickle up to my client. Again, kepe in mind, we're talkinmg about making good on the honest charges + whatever their bank charges and what the store got charged... sure, a lot of monye, but not the end of the world to fix an "honest" mistake.
And, for the record, we only recover the actual amount of the check, the actual bank fees my client (the store) incurred and no additional charges. We do turn fraud cases to the local DA, but most often the theft has been reported.
|
| 38 | rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Mon, Apr 04, 2005, 23:48
|
Before MBJ nukes this thread...
I agree with his post in #0 and #1. I belive a merchant should be able to recover their direct costs and banking fees (IE $25), but the rest of the "hassle" is the cost of doing business by check. I do not think my company would take contract that tried to collect a $200 fee of a small balance account.
However, it's not going to belong before there is either no cuch things as paper checks or there is practically no chance to bounce them. The advent of ATM cards took aout most check, but the newest product is ACH or electronic check processing which is going to basically veriy funnds are sitting there and are good. katietx is right, it's going to eliminate the float of writting a check on Thursday when you get paid Friday.
Finally, make no mistake, bounced checks and the "hassle" of recovering those charges are paid by you and I. Ask any high volume merchant how much he incurs in banking fees and recovery costs and you will see that ita huige expense. Guess what happens when expenses are high? Bread costs $0.10 more per loaf paid for by me and sarge33.
Still, Wallmart is overkill.
|
| 39 | sarge33rd
ID: 582341722
Tue, Apr 05, 2005, 00:57
|
OK rfs, I'll ammend my position to, in my experience, most are the result of an honest error.
Why? In Iowa, I know of no retailers who turn their bounced checks over for collection, until after presenting it to the bank a 2nd time. None. To my knowledge, every single one will present that check a 2nd time. (katie can address B&N, who has only been in the same part of Iowa as I, since APR of last year.) This of course does not mean that all do re-present the check, but I know that such a 2nd opportunity has long been the standard modus operandi.
As for the fees, do we have a banker here abouts? I have a question for you;
Why is it banks are so quick to charge fees (late fees for ex), and yet will adamantly refuse to pay them (late fees for ex)?
Yes, there are costs incurred by society for these things. I do not however, and will not "bleed for the banks", when I get 1.5% on my money in the bank, but pay 7.9% when borrowing money from the bank. Plus, a monthly fee I am charged for the privalege of their "holding" my money, plus the monthly fee I am charged for my ATM card, plus the monthly fee I am charged for.... (you get my drift I think)
|
| 40 | Baldwin
ID: 241292815
Tue, Apr 05, 2005, 14:15
|
For the second I couldn't find this, I thot MBJ actually nuked this thread.
Tacitus takes the side I do, that the new bankruptcy law is bad.
|
| 41 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Tue, Apr 05, 2005, 14:21
|
I don't read tacitus, but I might start now. A Republican who can feel shame is a rare and pleasant surprise.
|
| 42 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Tue, Apr 05, 2005, 16:55
|
Along the lines of the "criminalization of everything"...sort of...I'd like to get some opinions on the following situation:
Three weeks ago, Ms. Fluid was complaining of a toothache, so she scheduled an appointment with our dentist. She goes in, they take a few X-Rays and determine she needs a root-canal done on the tooth. "OK, here are some pain killers and we'll schedule you next week." OK, all fine and dandy. A weeks time passes, she goes in for the root canal. They crack open the tooth, drill, drill and drill some more. They temporarily close it up and say "we don't have a large enough bit to complete this, so you need to see a specialist next week." OK, she's fine with that. After all, what is another weeks worth of discomfort, after all?
So, yesterday she goes to see the specialist. The specialist removes the temporary filling, does some inspecting and says "they left a broken metal bit lodged into the tooth. She will need to reschedule for next week to attempt to remove it. If she can't then she will need to schedule 'oral surgery' to fix it, including potentially removing the tooth."
This is my breaking point. If it gets to the point of 'oral surgery', I fail to see how the Dentist negligence (in leaving a broke bit in my wife's tooth and concealing this fact) is going to be an added expense for me (since my low-rate dental insurance is already all spent for this year.)
I am curious as to others thoughts on my recourse at this moment. I am not a lawsuit happy guy, but initially feel that this is where it will be headed.
|
| 43 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Apr 05, 2005, 17:12
|
What did the dentist say when confronted with the fact that he left a piece of metal in the tooth?
|
| 44 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Tue, Apr 05, 2005, 17:31
|
That, I have not addressed yet. That was my next step (and what initiated my post here). I have a tendancy to want to be armed with information before hand.
|
| 45 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Tue, Apr 05, 2005, 18:20
|
What ever you do, do it quick, before any malpractice legislation is passed! ;)
Sorry I can't be of more help, RSF. Not really my area.
There may be some sort of board to arbitrate charges. Madman might know more.
|
| 46 | Timing
ID: 460272520
Tue, Apr 05, 2005, 20:17
|
Re: 37
I at one point used to collect on bad checks for a large grocery chain. I kind of find it hard to believe you would know a lot of times whether a check in your scenarios was 1, 2, 3 or 4. Most grocery chains that I'm aware of started using tele-check style systems a decade ago to approve checks so it's unlikely you have many repeat offenders where you can develop a pattern that suggests what type of offender you have. The larger your chain, the more effective this system becomes. Bad checks are probably way down because of this, even payroll check fraud and cash back fraud which is where the real money is.
|
| 47 | Mark L
Leader
ID: 3601149
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 00:43
|
RSF - I'd suggest you find a GOOD malpractice lawyer
in your area. Whatever you do, don't use the yellow
pages. Where do you live? Maybe I or someone in my
firm can recommend someone to you.
|
| 48 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 02:14
|
A correction to post 42 (after getting more details from my wife): The specialist did not remove the temporary filling, but took another set of X-Rays after performing a "sensitivity" test on the tooth and surrounding teeth. Their set of X-Rays shows the tooth with the abscess (cause for the "original" root-canal) is the tooth directly beside the tooth with the drill bit in it.
This is getting stranger by the minute.
|
| 49 | biliruben
ID: 531202411
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 09:35
|
I know a few laywers in the south-towns - I don't remember how far south you are. None are malpractice lawyers, but I could get a recemmendation for you.
I wasn't anxious to recommend that as the first option, however.
|
| 50 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 12:12
|
email
|
| 51 | rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 16:10
|
OK... Here's one that falls under the title (legal or not).
It involves how much force and what consequences there are if you TAKE the keys from a coworker/friend who is too drunk to drive after a company function. Short version:
1) Company dinner and one employee (female) gets way too drunk to drive. Obvious drunk.
2) A cab is called on her behalf (she didn't request this) and the last 4 people left waiting for cab are the drunk, me and 2 other females.
3) Cab arrives, drunk won't get in or relinquish keys. Gets verbally abusive.
4) One of the other females starts physically trying to take the drunk's purse. The other femaile joins in. 3 females on the ground!
5) Drunk female has keys forcebly taken from her purse. Mad as heck. Resort security calls police (on the drunk). Drunks runs away (litterally runs on foot) before police arrive. Police take report from us and leave.
6) We find out next day that the drunk broke her wrist in the fall. My role was to physically (with as much restraint as I could) separate the 3 females -- but I am much bigger/stronger than any of them.
My question is this. If drunk (who was fired BTW) wanted to file as a complaint because she was basically tackled and it broke her wrist... does she have grounds criminally or civilly? I don't think this will happen, but i am curious what would happen if she went to a DA with a story of "3 of my coworkers stole my keys and broke my wrist. I was assaulted" blah... blah..
Is there any precedent about how far a good samaritan can go to take keys or restain a drunk?
|
| 52 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 16:17
|
I don't see how the law could possibly be on your side, RFS.
You tackled a women, broke her wrist, and stole her car.
What did she do to instigate any of that? She didn't even attempt to drive.
|
| 53 | Baldwin
ID: 241292815
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 16:23
|
That is frightening. And yet what else could you do? Probably saved a couple lives. Was it a company function? I don't suppose those dram shop laws authorize proactive force but only speak of denying drinks.
|
| 54 | rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 16:24
|
To clarify. I didn't tackle. I pulled apart. No one stole her car. It sat in the parking lot.
I guess, the basis for my inquiry is, haven't we all had friends too drunk to drive? Haven't we all 'taken' keys from friends. If the drunk doesn't want to give them up, are we to just say "go ahead and drive because i'm afraid I might injur you so better off running down little kids, have a nice day" . By the way, she made it clear verbally several times that she intended to drive and was walking to her car (parking lot) when the OTHER person tackled her.
Again, I'm asking the question because I want to know an honest answer even if it is not inmy favor.
|
| 55 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 16:27
|
Well you were probably doing the right thing, but can you even prove she was legally drunk?
|
| 56 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 16:52
|
Assuming you can prove the facts in your story (with witnesses - don't need a blood test on the BAC or anything)
Definitely no criminal liabilty.
Civil liabilty would be a judgment call. When you undertake to "rescue" someone as a good samaritan - you still are under an obligation to not act negligently or wrecklessly (Some states have "good samaritan" statutes but I doubt they would apply, even by reference to the situtation you describe).
I doubt you have anything to worry about.
|
| 57 | rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 21:19
|
Thanks for weighing in, MBJ.
|
| 58 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719
Wed, Apr 06, 2005, 22:13
|
I can't imagine any prosecutor filing charges in that matter, but I have seen worse filings.
However, I would not want to be one of the women who tackled the drunk. A smart plaintiff's attorney would throw in a big lost wages claim, arguing that had these women not have created this huge scene, drunk would have left quietly and still have a job.
You are in the clear, if I can believe your story, which I don't, because you said you are "bigger/stronger" than they were. I can't see you being bigger and stronger than any woman, frankly ;)
|
| 59 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Apr 13, 2005, 10:53
|
Don't like pictures of embryos - call the police
Protesters handing out anti-abortion pamphlets on campus caused a series of complaints to local police Wednesday.
Director of Public Safety Jerry Stewart said ISU Police received 12 phone calls within one hour on Wednesday afternoon from people objecting to graphic images displayed on posters and handouts from a group of people objecting to abortion......
Stewart said plainclothes and uniformed officers spoke with the group after hearing complaints.
"There was no evidence of people being detained against their will or being unduly accosted or harassed," he said.
"While the images that appeared may be objectionable to a number of people, they appear to be legal."
Damn - I hate it when the cops let the 1st Amendment get in the way of protecting evryone from everything that bugs them.
|
| 60 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Apr 13, 2005, 11:00
|
I'm glad you're not in civil law, MBJ, otherwise you'd be very jaded.
;)
|
| 61 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Aug 25, 2005, 09:05
|
Shut-up fat a$$
So there is this doctor in NH who stands to lose his medical license because a patient of his took offense that he told her that her big, fat a$$ was unhealthy. Is this what the government is for?
|
| 62 | Tree
Sustainer
ID: 599393013
Thu, Aug 25, 2005, 09:47
|
i can completely understand where the lady suing is coming from. i mean, after all, she probably needs the extra money to keep her fat arse in twinkies and lard.
ok, seriously. the doctor gave her medical advice. it's that simple. nothing wrong with that.
|
| 64 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 11:43
|
So anyway, about that crazy New Hampshire doctor...
|
| 65 | sarge33rd
ID: 344362512
Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 14:04
|
Drs like everyone else make mistakes, butt elling a tall man he is tall, or a blonde man that he is blonde, or a skinny woman that she is skinny, do not count among those errors. Thus, telling a fat patient they are fat, is also not an error.
|
| 66 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 19:27
|
Wedgie
A six year old has been referred to the prosecuting attorney by his elementary school for giving a classmate a wedgie, more or less.
A first grader was suspended for three days after school officials said he sexually harassed a girl in his class by allegedly putting two fingers inside the girl's waistband while she sat on the floor in front of him.
The boy's mother, Berthena Dorinvil, said she "screamed" about last week's suspension from Downey Elementary School, and added her son doesn't know what sexual harassment is.
"He doesn't know those things," she told The Enterprise of Brockton. "He's only 6 years old."
School officials declined comment to The Enterprise, citing the child's age.
"They would have not suspended the child without doing an investigation," said spokeswoman Cynthia McNally.
Dorinvil said the school principal, Diane Gosselin, called her to pick up her son Jan. 30. She said her son asked the principal if the police were going to come get him.
The principal told Dorinvil the girl complained to the teacher after her son touched the girl's waistband, hitting her skin, in a room full of children.
Dorinvil said her son told her he touched the girl's shirt, not her skin, after the girl touched him.
"He was playing with her," Dorinvil said.
|
| 67 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 21:32
|
Insanity
The FBI wants people to remove hats and sunglasses when they enter a bank, agents said.
They want a law that mandates it. WTF?
If I wanted to live in Europe, I would move there.
|
| 68 | biliruben
ID: 17502215
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 12:24
|
Brilliant.
All those FBI agents that are being cut from the budget can now have jobs as doormen at WAMU.
|
| 69 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Aug 26, 2008, 20:34
|
Tell a stranger a joke - spend 3 days in jail
"I've heard many variations of that," said Jones, retired director of Berea College's Appalachian Center. "You might hear 'That's a good looking boy; I'd trade you a pocket knife for him' ... Political correctness has ruined country humor."
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|