or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 236

post #3526 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

What planet did you go to law school on?

Is it supposed to be that I didn't go to law school, or that I'm stuck in first-year civil procedure?

Quote:
Again, you clearly didn't read the case. Still waiting for that case.


EDIT - I doubt they had any reflectors on either end in 1930, so your case is totally inapplicable to this query.

I'm sorry I don't have a proverbial butter churn case for you, but that one is close enough. I did read the case. It says what it says. All the posturing in the world won't change it.

And the court didn't even bother with the question of why it was negligence per se, with regard to the specific danger, it just treated it as obvious.

You don't attack the black letter law on which the decision is based. You don't attack the specific holding of the case in any meaningful way. There's just nothing for me to respond to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I have absolutely no idea who is right, but it's always fun reading discussions like this.

Me. It's not even close.
post #3527 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Me. It's not even close.

Proof he is a lawyer.

post #3528 of 6095
Ataturk is wrong about almost everything else, so I'm going to assume he's wrong about this also.
post #3529 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Is it supposed to be that I didn't go to law school, or that I'm stuck in first-year civil procedure?
I'm sorry I don't have a proverbial butter churn case for you, but that one is close enough. I did read the case. It says what it says. All the posturing in the world won't change it.

And the court didn't even bother with the question of why it was negligence per se, with regard to the specific danger, it just treated it as obvious.

You don't attack the black letter law on which the decision is based. You don't attack the specific holding of the case in any meaningful way. There's just nothing for me to respond to.
Me. It's not even close.

I'm on martini 3, I'll have to respond later.
post #3530 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Still waiting for a case where parking in the wrong direction in a legitimate parking space is negligence per se.

What about a case where one of your wheels is 13 inches from the curb instead of 12?

Definitely your fault if someone full-on rear ends you in that situation right?
post #3531 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Proof he is a lawyer.

If by that you mean I've resorted to the sort of empty posturing employed by the other guys, then I suppose that's true.

If you think I'm losing the argument, you probably didn't read it. Or maybe it's because I've been pulling punches. I don't really feel the need to go off trashing people, because I recognize that these are things not every lawyer would know -- but "Cars don't have reflectors!" "You can't cite criminal laws in a civil case!" Etc. There's no shortage of gross misstatements I could make fun of if I wanted to. How 'bout pointing out that not only was Harvey wrong about the law generally, but about his own state? And his argument about "right side" versus "driver's side" while simultaneously citing mail trucks -- which have the driver on the wrong side, illustrating why the statute is worded the way it is. And I'm still waiting to see if there's anything behind lawyerdad's jab. I'm guessing there isn't.
post #3532 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


If by that you mean I've resorted to the sort of empty posturing employed by the other guys, then I suppose that's true.

If you think I'm losing the argument, you probably didn't read it. Or maybe it's because I've been pulling punches. I don't really feel the need to go off trashing people, because I recognize that these are things not every lawyer would know -- but "Cars don't have reflectors!" "You can't cite criminal laws in a civil case!" Etc. There's no shortage of gross misstatements I could make fun of if I wanted to. How 'bout pointing out that not only was Harvey wrong about the law generally, but about his own state? And his argument about "right side" versus "driver's side" while simultaneously citing mail trucks -- which have the driver on the wrong side, illustrating why the statute is worded the way it is. And I'm still waiting to see if there's anything behind lawyerdad's jab. I'm guessing there isn't.


You've got me wrong.  It has nothing to do with the argument in question.  I don't know a lawyer who would ever admit that he is losing the fight.

post #3533 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Just so I'm clear here...this exchange is to defend the thought having a loaded gun, rammed into your head gangsta style by a police officer, is an appropriate response to possibly parking illegally outside of your own dwelling?

As long as he got home at the end of his shift!
post #3534 of 6095
While we're on the subject of advanced forum howto, how do I do one of those jerk off smiley faces?
post #3535 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

While we're on the subject of advanced forum howto, how do I do one of those jerk off smiley faces?

It's called "a selfie."


(no hate)
post #3536 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

It's called "a selfie."


(no hate)

Oh. I guess I did say how do you do one, but what meant was, how would I?
post #3537 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Oh. I guess I did say how do you do one, but what meant was, how would I?

post #3538 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Oh. I guess I did say how do you do one, but what meant was, how would I?

Presumably just reverse your grip and then proceed as you would with a selfie? If you don't get a smiley face, you're probably doing it wrong.








As to your real question -- I'm not sure, but if you quote another post it usually shows the coding. Maybe try that with a post that has the graphic you want and see if that works?
post #3539 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

If by that you mean I've resorted to the sort of empty posturing employed by the other guys, then I suppose that's true.

If you think I'm losing the argument, you probably didn't read it. Or maybe it's because I've been pulling punches. I don't really feel the need to go off trashing people, because I recognize that these are things not every lawyer would know -- but "Cars don't have reflectors!" "You can't cite criminal laws in a civil case!" Etc. There's no shortage of gross misstatements I could make fun of if I wanted to. How 'bout pointing out that not only was Harvey wrong about the law generally, but about his own state? And his argument about "right side" versus "driver's side" while simultaneously citing mail trucks -- which have the driver on the wrong side, illustrating why the statute is worded the way it is. And I'm still waiting to see if there's anything behind lawyerdad's jab. I'm guessing there isn't.


Still waiting for that case. Keep making shit up in the meantime.

EDIT - Nobody wrote either of those things you put in quotes. You're worse than the media when it comes to Trump, you like to misstate the opposing side's position and attack a bullshit straw man. You're really terrible at this.

Citing a fucking 90 year old case for negligence law, good luck with that.

DOUBLE EDIT - I transported liquor over state lines when I got into a car accident. I must be at fault.
Edited by Harold falcon - 12/11/15 at 3:16pm
post #3540 of 6095
Are you still at this? Fine. Two separate cases where the court considers negligence per se for violating substantially the same statute. It's rejected in both cases but only because the plaintiffs can't show that the statute was supposed to protect them.

Backers v. Cedartown Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,128 S.E.2d 355 (1962):

No negligence per se for parking on the wrong side of the road, but only because the statute wasn't intended to preserve views:
Quote:
Whatever its purpose, it is clear that the legislative intent was not to prevent the obstructed view of motorists and pedestrians by parked vehicles, as views would be generally just as much obstructed with vehicles parking facing in one direction as in the other.

https://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/669/09/index.html

Haver v. Hinson, 385 So. 2d 605 (Miss. 1980) (same holding, observing that the parking-on-the-right-side-of-the-road statute protects "only pedestrians and drivers who act in reliance upon the orderly flow of traffic dictated by the statute")

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1741723/haver-v-hinson/?

Note that Hinson court also says "peremptory instruction on liability." I guess the judge who wrote it was stuck in first-year civ pro too!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?