Imagine robbing a liquor store in a mask then getting into your car and driving home then trying to argue it wasn't you. We all know it's you driving your car. If it wasn't you driving, then please explain who had access to your car. Why are you guys acting like you found a loophole here? Like you'd have to be a real moron to buy this argument.
Imagine robbing a liquor store in a mask then getting into your car and driving home then trying to argue it wasn't you. We all know it's you driving your car. If it wasn't you driving, then please explain who had access to your car. Why are you guys acting like you found a loophole here? Like you'd have to be a real moron to buy this argument.
Well fortunately for all of us, the burden of proof falls upon the state to prove criminal infractions. Robust protection for the accused is kind of a major tenet of our justice system and “Obviously we know it was you, because... common sense!” Is not sufficient evidence of a crime. We should be grateful for that, even when it irks our common sense.
Lots of arguments are used in court and it's hard to parse this argument farther given it's very abstract. But my initial comment was actually intended to convey it is *very silly* to wear a mask thinking this will somehow get you out of a traffic ticket. It's so silly I'm still not sure if Katie was being earnest. Such a scenario is never going to occur. If it did occur, it would generally not be that hard to prove who was driving the car.
Yes legal arguments are things that happen but it's kind of a separate issue. Maybe activists will win a case they chose carefully based on specific wording in a law they take issue with.
But day-to-day these systems are populated by human beings who aren't complete morons. I have been to traffic courts and seen this play out a dozen times. If Katie gets a traffic ticket she's simply going to pay it. If she's incredibly stubborn and somehow does end up in a traffic court, most likely the judge will look at her and say: "This seems like a waste of time, are you really going to tell me you weren't the one driving?" Katie will feel uncomfortable and ridiculous and she will admit it was her and pay the ticket and go home. It's completely infantile to think it would play out other way.
I'm sure you internet warriors can find some court case that plays out like your fantasy here, but I'm equally certain you have never sat in a courtroom and witnessed such an argument play out. It doesn't happen that way for 99% of people 99% of the time.
Lol. I wonder if you’re the comment troll they alluded to in the last podcast...
I’m not an “internet warrior.” This is a discussion thread- hence people here discuss the various aspects of topics brought up on the show.
Just because the vast majority of people who get traffic camera tickets pay them and move on with their lives doesn’t mean there isn’t an argument against the legal validity of the measure.
Most people pay the ticket because the cost of hiring a lawyer to argue you out of it would exceed the fine and 99% of people 99% of the time are mostly just interested in avoiding the financial punishment.
But the fact is, organizations HAVE taken up the cause and won. So it’s not a moronic fantasy argument; it’s just not a hill most people care to die on.
Imagine robbing a liquor store in a mask then getting into your car and driving home then trying to argue it wasn't you. We all know it's you driving your car. If it wasn't you driving, then please explain who had access to your car. Why are you guys acting like you found a loophole here? Like you'd have to be a real moron to buy this argument.
Well fortunately for all of us, the burden of proof falls upon the state to prove criminal infractions. Robust protection for the accused is kind of a major tenet of our justice system and “Obviously we know it was you, because... common sense!” Is not sufficient evidence of a crime. We should be grateful for that, even when it irks our common sense.
I don’t think I did. Your comment was that only a moron would think he could go into court and argue “You cannot prove it was me.”
But that in fact is exactly what a person could do, and they’d probably win- so long as they had an attorney to do it for them.
So I guess I agree with you that only a moron would spend a couple grand in attorney fees to avoid a $100 fine.
But take your argument about the more serious accusation of armed robbery where your car was seen leaving the liquor store.
A decent attorney could poke some holes there if that was the only evidence, and that would probably be a pretty good use of $$.
The argument of “Come the fuck on. We all KNOW it was you.” would not get the prosecution very far.
Lots of arguments are used in court and it's hard to parse this argument farther given it's very abstract. But my initial comment was actually intended to convey it is *very silly* to wear a mask thinking this will somehow get you out of a traffic ticket. It's so silly I'm still not sure if Katie was being earnest. Such a scenario is never going to occur. If it did occur, it would generally not be that hard to prove who was driving the car.
Yes legal arguments are things that happen but it's kind of a separate issue. Maybe activists will win a case they chose carefully based on specific wording in a law they take issue with.
But day-to-day these systems are populated by human beings who aren't complete morons. I have been to traffic courts and seen this play out a dozen times. If Katie gets a traffic ticket she's simply going to pay it. If she's incredibly stubborn and somehow does end up in a traffic court, most likely the judge will look at her and say: "This seems like a waste of time, are you really going to tell me you weren't the one driving?" Katie will feel uncomfortable and ridiculous and she will admit it was her and pay the ticket and go home. It's completely infantile to think it would play out other way.
I'm sure you internet warriors can find some court case that plays out like your fantasy here, but I'm equally certain you have never sat in a courtroom and witnessed such an argument play out. It doesn't happen that way for 99% of people 99% of the time.
Lol. I wonder if you’re the comment troll they alluded to in the last podcast...
I’m not an “internet warrior.” This is a discussion thread- hence people here discuss the various aspects of topics brought up on the show.
Just because the vast majority of people who get traffic camera tickets pay them and move on with their lives doesn’t mean there isn’t an argument against the legal validity of the measure.
Most people pay the ticket because the cost of hiring a lawyer to argue you out of it would exceed the fine and 99% of people 99% of the time are mostly just interested in avoiding the financial punishment.
But the fact is, organizations HAVE taken up the cause and won. So it’s not a moronic fantasy argument; it’s just not a hill most people care to die on.
I'm not trolling anyone. weird way to admit I was right.
And the argument of “You cannot prove I was the one driving.” actually has been successfully argued in courts, so there’s that.