Options

ITT: Condom Sex vs. No-Condom Sex

1246725

Posts

  • Options
    MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Callius wrote:

    Actually, Susie, it is your right to request a trial where you can cross examine your witness...

    Just sayin'... lol constitution.
    But the intent of people is not to cross-examine the witness, but to set up circumstances so that the witness won't be there and you can win by default.
    I am all about civil liberties. Woo civil rights. But seriously,none of this is about civil liberties. It's only about trying to get away with something you know you shouldn't do. It is trying to beat the system. I am glad we have the system we do,and am not saying there is anything wrong with it. What I am saying is that people who abuse the system are scum.

    MulysaSempronius on
    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • Options
    Mad IronMad Iron Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Because weaseling out of stuff is what separates us from the animals.

    Mad Iron on
  • Options
    jwalkjwalk Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Kadith wrote:
    Yeah, but if I committed that crime why the hell should I fight that accusation?
    Many many reasons, the least of which isn't that it's your right to do so. Why even have rights if people aren't going to excercise them? Hell let's throw out the whole system and just have officers shake you down and make you pay the fines on the spot!

    Again, if you are merely going 5-10 MPH over the "posted speed" (not the "maximum speed") you may not even be committing a crime. In fact, if they are using radar and don't have a current Traffic and Engineering study on that stretch of road, the cop is the one breaking the law (illegal speed trap).

    jwalk on
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Kadith wrote:
    Yeah, but if I committed that crime why the hell should I fight that accusation?

    You don't have to, but you do have the right.

    The 6th amendment doesn't say that you have the right to cross examine the witnesses against you only if you didn't commit the crime (see fifth amendment). It says that you have the right to cross examine the witnesses against you.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Not that you are scum, and like I said,fuck speeding tickets. They suck.

    MulysaSempronius on
    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Callius wrote:

    Actually, Susie, it is your right to request a trial where you can cross examine your witness...

    Just sayin'... lol constitution.
    But the intent of people is not to cross-examine the witness, but to set up circumstances so that the witness won't be there and you can win by default.
    I am all about civil liberties. Woo civil rights. But seriously,none of this is about civil liberties. It's only about trying to get away with something you know you shouldn't do. It is trying to beat the system. I am glad we have the system we do,and am not saying there is anything wrong with it. What I am saying is that people who abuse the system are scum.

    Saying "I am contesting this ticket." and then going to court makes you scum?

    What?

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    JordynJordyn Really, Commander? Probing Uranus. Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Susie, you can call someone scum if you want. It's the internets, I mean. Go ahead.

    Jordyn on
    thumbsupguy-1.jpg
    JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Jordyn wrote:
    Susie, you can call someone scum if you want. It's the internets, I mean. Go ahead.

    Jordyn, the internet isn't spelled with an S at the end.

    You scum.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Callius wrote:
    Callius wrote:

    Actually, Susie, it is your right to request a trial where you can cross examine your witness...

    Just sayin'... lol constitution.
    But the intent of people is not to cross-examine the witness, but to set up circumstances so that the witness won't be there and you can win by default.
    I am all about civil liberties. Woo civil rights. But seriously,none of this is about civil liberties. It's only about trying to get away with something you know you shouldn't do. It is trying to beat the system. I am glad we have the system we do,and am not saying there is anything wrong with it. What I am saying is that people who abuse the system are scum.

    Saying "I am contesting this ticket." and then going to court makes you scum?

    What?

    It does when you do it for the purpose of trying to get off on a technicallity when the officer doesn't make it to the hearing.

    Marathon on
  • Options
    BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    In her defense, she is right.

    We are scum.

    Brolo on
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Callius wrote:
    Callius wrote:

    Actually, Susie, it is your right to request a trial where you can cross examine your witness...

    Just sayin'... lol constitution.
    But the intent of people is not to cross-examine the witness, but to set up circumstances so that the witness won't be there and you can win by default.
    I am all about civil liberties. Woo civil rights. But seriously,none of this is about civil liberties. It's only about trying to get away with something you know you shouldn't do. It is trying to beat the system. I am glad we have the system we do,and am not saying there is anything wrong with it. What I am saying is that people who abuse the system are scum.

    Saying "I am contesting this ticket." and then going to court makes you scum?

    What?

    It does when you do it for the purpose of trying to get off on a technicallity when the officer doesn't make it to the hearing.

    Do you understand what the fifth amendment is and why it's there?

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    JordynJordyn Really, Commander? Probing Uranus. Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Callius wrote:
    Jordyn wrote:
    Susie, you can call someone scum if you want. It's the internets, I mean. Go ahead.

    Jordyn, the internet isn't spelled with an S at the end.

    You scum.

    the netterwebs.

    Jordyn on
    thumbsupguy-1.jpg
    JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
  • Options
    MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    If by contesting the ticket, the cop always showed up and an actual trial actually occurred, then I would be fine with anybody and everybody doing it. But if your intent is to just engineer a way for the cop to not show up, thereby getting out of the ticket, then you are abusing the system.
    If you are honestly saying you just want to confront your accuser,go right ahead. But I think we are not all that naive to actually think that is your real motive. Stop dressing it up as a civil liberties thing- I am not fooled.

    MulysaSempronius on
    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • Options
    MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Callius wrote:
    Marathon wrote:
    Callius wrote:
    Callius wrote:

    Actually, Susie, it is your right to request a trial where you can cross examine your witness...

    Just sayin'... lol constitution.
    But the intent of people is not to cross-examine the witness, but to set up circumstances so that the witness won't be there and you can win by default.
    I am all about civil liberties. Woo civil rights. But seriously,none of this is about civil liberties. It's only about trying to get away with something you know you shouldn't do. It is trying to beat the system. I am glad we have the system we do,and am not saying there is anything wrong with it. What I am saying is that people who abuse the system are scum.

    Saying "I am contesting this ticket." and then going to court makes you scum?

    What?

    It does when you do it for the purpose of trying to get off on a technicallity when the officer doesn't make it to the hearing.

    Do you understand what the fifth amendment is and why it's there?

    Yes I do. And what im saying is that trying to use it to weasel your way out of a speeding ticket when you are clearly guilty (like the OP admitted) is an abuse of the system.

    Marathon on
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    If by contesting the ticket, the cop always showed up and an actual trial actually occurred, then I would be fine with anybody and everybody doing it. But if your intent is to just engineer a way for the cop to not show up, thereby getting out of the ticket, then you are abusing the system.
    If you are honestly saying you just want to confront your accuser,go right ahead. But I think we are not all that naive to actually think that is your real motive. Stop dressing it up as a civil liberties thing- I am not fooled.

    Okay, I'll slow down for you.

    You have a right to a trial. You have a right not to incriminate yourself. You have a right to confront your accuser.

    These rights are encapsulated in the fifth and sixth amendments.

    By combining these rights people get out of things which they know they did but the state does not have the hubris to punish them for.

    This is how the system is set up and it isn't "taking advantage" of it, it's using your rights in a completely applicable and intelligent way.

    Though, I suppose that you are adding in a superlative "delaying the trial" bit, which not everyone does (myself, for example) and is different based upon which state the accused is in. There is also the bit of a speedy trial, which is in the favour of the police in this instance.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    jwalkjwalk Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    You people can do what you want. Like I said, over 99% of people just mail in their fine. But they do that mostly because they think they have to go to court (twice) and the loss of wages from 2 days off is more than the fines.

    What they don't realize (and the governement is in NO hurry to tell you) is that you can do the entire process BY MAIL.
    ...
    Personally, when I get pulled over because some the local police dept. needed to generate some extra revenue, so they took an officer off the street and set him up with a radar gun, but my speed was perfectly safe for conditions, and no life or property was put at risk, I fight it because in my opinion I AM NOT BREAKING THE LAW. Of course the officer's opinion is that I was, that's why he gave me a ticket. Fortunately we have this great court system where a JUDGE gets to decide who's opinion is correct. That's all I'm asking for, my right to have a judge decide whether I broke the law - NOT some rookie cop who his boss told him to go out and generate some revenue so the dept. can buy new Tazer-guns...

    If the cops don't show up, they aren't doing their job, and they just wasted my time, and the court's time. It's not my job to make the officers show up and prosecute me. Like I said, most of them show up anyway because they get paid overtime.

    jwalk on
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Callius wrote:
    Marathon wrote:
    Callius wrote:
    Callius wrote:

    Actually, Susie, it is your right to request a trial where you can cross examine your witness...

    Just sayin'... lol constitution.
    But the intent of people is not to cross-examine the witness, but to set up circumstances so that the witness won't be there and you can win by default.
    I am all about civil liberties. Woo civil rights. But seriously,none of this is about civil liberties. It's only about trying to get away with something you know you shouldn't do. It is trying to beat the system. I am glad we have the system we do,and am not saying there is anything wrong with it. What I am saying is that people who abuse the system are scum.

    Saying "I am contesting this ticket." and then going to court makes you scum?

    What?

    It does when you do it for the purpose of trying to get off on a technicallity when the officer doesn't make it to the hearing.

    Do you understand what the fifth amendment is and why it's there?

    Yes I do. And what im saying is that trying to use it to weasel your way out of a speeding ticket when you are clearly guilty (like the OP admitted) is an abuse of the system.

    I am going to exercise my fifth amendment right.
    I am going to exercise my sixth amendment right.


    You feel that these are acceptable rights, except when used in concert with one another?

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    redimpulseredimpulse Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Ok, I can understand the whole 'excercising your rights' and such, but I don't understand this:

    I broke the law. I know it, the officer knows it, and I'm expected to pay for it. But instead of just paying for it and making things easier on myself and the system, I think I'll waste taxpayer money and clerical/judicial time by filing for extension after extension in hopes that when I finally go to court, no one will care enough to show and I'll get off.

    What the hell is the point? When your court date is set, that time is allotted for you. If you go in near the date and file an extension, your previous slot is not reappointed, thus wasting the judge's time, the clerk's time, and tax money that pays their salary. If it's a fucking minor traffic violation, just pay the damn thing and get on with your life. If it's something more serious, then yeah go to court and plead your case. But there's no reason to push things until the very last minute. You're wasting more of other people's money than your are saving of your own.

    redimpulse on
    rbsig.jpg
  • Options
    MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Callius wrote:

    I am going to exercise my fifth amendment right.
    I am going to exercise my sixth amendment right.


    You feel that these are acceptable rights, except when used in concert with one another?

    They are acceptable when they are used to protect the innocent as they were initially intended for. To use them in such a way that you are found not guilty, based on a loophole in the law, of a crime you know full well you committed is not acceptable.

    Marathon on
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    redimpulse wrote:
    Ok, I can understand the whole 'excercising your rights' and such, but I don't understand this:

    I broke the law. I know it, the officer knows it, and I'm expected to pay for it. But instead of just paying for it and making things easier on myself and the system, I think I'll waste taxpayer money and clerical/judicial time by filing for extension after extension in hopes that when I finally go to court, no one will care enough to show and I'll get off.

    What the hell is the point? When your court date is set, that time is allotted for you. If you go in near the date and file an extension, your previous slot is not reappointed, thus wasting the judge's time, the clerk's time, and tax money that pays their salary. If it's a fucking minor traffic violation, just pay the damn thing and get on with your life. If it's something more serious, then yeah go to court and plead your case. But there's no reason to push things until the very last minute. You're wasting more of other people's money than your are saving of your own.

    Fair enough, I suppose.

    Your qualm isn't with taking the issue to court, your qualm is with waiving your sixth amendment right to a speedy trial.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Callius wrote:

    I am going to exercise my fifth amendment right.
    I am going to exercise my sixth amendment right.


    You feel that these are acceptable rights, except when used in concert with one another?

    They are acceptable when they are used to protect the innocent as they were initially intended for. To use them in such a way that you are found not guilty, based on a loophole in the law, of a crime you know full well you committed is not acceptable.

    Yes it is.

    I ask again, do you know what the fifth amendment is and why it exists?

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    redimpulseredimpulse Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Callius wrote:
    redimpulse wrote:
    Ok, I can understand the whole 'excercising your rights' and such, but I don't understand this:

    I broke the law. I know it, the officer knows it, and I'm expected to pay for it. But instead of just paying for it and making things easier on myself and the system, I think I'll waste taxpayer money and clerical/judicial time by filing for extension after extension in hopes that when I finally go to court, no one will care enough to show and I'll get off.

    What the hell is the point? When your court date is set, that time is allotted for you. If you go in near the date and file an extension, your previous slot is not reappointed, thus wasting the judge's time, the clerk's time, and tax money that pays their salary. If it's a fucking minor traffic violation, just pay the damn thing and get on with your life. If it's something more serious, then yeah go to court and plead your case. But there's no reason to push things until the very last minute. You're wasting more of other people's money than your are saving of your own.

    Fair enough, I suppose.

    Your qualm isn't with taking the issue to court, your qualm is with waiving your sixth amendment right to a speedy trial.
    Pretty much, yeah. It's not efficient at all, and clogs up the system which we all know is quite clogged up in the first place.

    redimpulse on
    rbsig.jpg
  • Options
    MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I am not saying that people should be stopped from having a trial to contest a ticket. I think the rights that grant it are too important to deny for stupid thing like speeding tickets. The law is clear, and people certainly can do whatever they want.
    And the system is generally designed so that, theoretically, guilty people can fall through the nets in the hopes that innocent people are not caught up in them. That is also generally a good thing.
    But a system like that is easily exploited.My initial rant was about that idiot who said not exploiting the system was somehow bad, and that people who fess up to their obvious guilt are sheep. Then, somehow, civil liberties came into it when my argument was never about civil liberties. It was about individual morality, and just owning up to your mistakes. Individual responsibility and all that. Not paying a speeding ticket when you actually were speeding isn't a great wrong, but it is disingenuous to say you are just standing up for your civil liberties when you are trying to exploit the system.

    MulysaSempronius on
    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I am not saying that people should be stopped from having a trial to contest a ticket. I think the rights that grant it are too important to deny for stupid thing like speeding tickets. The law is clear, and people certainly can do whatever they want.
    And the system is generally designed so that, theoretically, guilty people can fall through the nets in the hopes that innocent people are not caught up in them. That is also generally a good thing.
    But a system like that is easily exploited.My initial rant was about that idiot who said not exploiting the system was somehow bad, and that people who fess up to their obvious guilt are sheep. Then, somehow, civil liberties came into it when my argument was never about civil liberties. It was about individual morality, and just owning up to your mistakes. Individual responsibility and all that. Not paying a speeding ticket when you actually were speeding isn't a great wrong, but it is disingenuous to say you are just standing up for your civil liberties when you are trying to exploit the system.

    Oh yeah, that duder is being annoying and dumb. Which is why I'm pretty much just ignoring him on the basis that he's being caustic and accusatory. However valid his point may be.

    Regardless, like you said, the way the American law system works is that it's the governments job to make it abundantly clear that you did something. This is a better way than saying that it's your job to make it abundantly clear that you didn't do something.

    The problem, I think, isn't so much with people "scamming the system" it's that the "system" is so bloated with bullshit laws that it's bogging itself down with people exercising their valid rights.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    jwalkjwalk Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Well I don't know about that. Like I said, I do the whole thing by mail, I never even go to court.

    But on the other hand, if they are going to "bust" people on a technicality (speeding, yet not actually doing anything abnormally risky), then I don't see a problem with trying to "get off" on one.

    It's not our fault if the goverment's system is set up that way.

    If they want to streamline the system, then do it. Unfortunately I fear that they will only erode our rights further. I mean they already did away with our right to a trial by jury in traffic cases. What's next, the officer just zips your credit card right there on the spot?

    Look at it this way, IF only 10% of people "fought" their radar/speeding tickets, they would clog the courts so much that they would cease to be profitable. So, they would stop giving out so many tickets for bullshit "speeding", so instead of having an officer sitting there reading the newspaper or WTFever waiting for his radar gun to "beep", he might actually be patrolling, trying to catch peoeple ridin dirt.. err... catch people actually committing dangerous crimes.. like not using your fucking turn signal, or tailgating (neither of which I do, though I do drive pretty fast, this I admit, but it's a small sporty car that is perfectly safe going 75-80 easily. If they want to catch "speeders" how about pulling over the idiots in large trucks and SUVs that drive faster than I do, weaving in and out of traffic like they were in a goddamn Ferarri..)

    THAT's my issue with "speeding" tickets. They are bullshit, used only to generate revenue, and they don't actually make the streets "safer". :v:

    jwalk on
  • Options
    MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    jwalk, I doubt anybody would say you shouldn't fight a ticket that was wrong.If you weren't breaking the law, then I think anybody would say ask for a trial.

    MulysaSempronius on
    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • Options
    M.D.M.D. and then what happens? Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I almost had a speeding ticket. The cop let me off with a warning, I was doing 87 in a 65.

    Never again will I speed in New Jersey.

    M.D. on
  • Options
    MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    My mom works for the police department now. I plan on subtly mentioning this next time I am pulled over.

    She won't give me the secret bumper-sticker that they hand out to let the cops know not to pull you over.

    MulysaSempronius on
    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • Options
    KnobKnob TURN THE BEAT BACK InternetModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2006
    what the hell did you say speeding is a technicality?


    no it isn't

    if the law says drive 50 on this road and you are going 75 you are breaking the law

    there isn;t a goddamned technicality

    not agreeing with a law doesn't make it a technicality


    hey i believe all property should be communal! But now i am in prison on a technicality because i wasn't hurting anyone, i was just stealing tvs

    Knob on
  • Options
    MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Dude, each state has its own laws. Maybe his state is special.

    MulysaSempronius on
    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • Options
    JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Yeah I was just gonna say

    There is nothing technical about going over the speed limit. You going over the posted limit means you are breaking the law.

    Javen on
  • Options
    CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I believe that knob wanted to fuck me. So I drugged him and fucked him.

    Prove it otherwise.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • Options
    jwalkjwalk Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Knob stop being so snarky and read the law if you really care to know what the fuck you're talking about. Actually, the "basic speed" law says that the posted speeds are really only suggestions and that yes, going faster can be perfectly LEGAL if it's safe for conditions.

    Yeah at least in CA, I really don't know if it's the same in every state, but I think it's probably similar.

    I mean I got pulled over for doing 80.0 in a 75, in New Mexico.. In my uncle's Mercedes... built for the Autobahn and all that. OH clearly I deserved to be punished for this very dangerous crime! :roll:

    jwalk on
  • Options
    KnobKnob TURN THE BEAT BACK InternetModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2006
    oh i'm sorry i didn't know what the word 'limit' meant

    Knob on
  • Options
    Garlic BreadGarlic Bread i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a Registered User, Disagreeable regular
    edited December 2006
    I almost had a speeding ticket. The cop let me off with a warning, I was doing 87 in a 65.

    Never again will I speed in New Jersey.

    Like everyone I know that's driven in New Jersey (who lives outside the state) has gotten a ticket for speeding.

    Garlic Bread on
  • Options
    MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Crimes don't have to be dangerous to be enforced.

    MulysaSempronius on
    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • Options
    StarfuckStarfuck Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    i'm thinking of contacting a lawyer to legally adopt my step-daughter this year
    last i heard the real dad was locked up in some looney bin

    do they still call them looney bins?

    Starfuck on
    jackfaces
    "If you're going to play tiddly winks, play it with man hole covers."
    - John McCallum
  • Options
    JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Most states adopt an absolute stance on speed limits, so if you're above the posted limit, you're breaking the law, period. There are a small number of states that have a prima facie approach, meaning that if the accused can come up with a valid defense as to why he/she was speeding, the fine could be reduced or eliminated. That doesn't happen too often though as most people who are speeding have no real reason to be doing so.

    Javen on
  • Options
    jwalkjwalk Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Knob wrote:
    oh i'm sorry i didn't know what the word 'limit' meant
    Clearly you do not.
    The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350, states:"No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."

    jwalk on
  • Options
    Garlic BreadGarlic Bread i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a Registered User, Disagreeable regular
    edited December 2006
    My dad told me around here you can go like 15 mph above the limit or something and be fine

    He was a cop for like 32 years

    Garlic Bread on
Sign In or Register to comment.