A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Harvard at 16, Ph.D.

Yale also?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I still think that’s bullshit because the Texas Transportation Code requires that she “wilfully fails or refuses to bring the vehicle to a stop or flees, or attempts to elude, a police officer.” If she slowly climbed the parking structure, I don’t think she committed an offense because Texas failed to incorporate a requirement that one pull over at the first safe opportunity.

Or maybe the charge was “trolling a police officer,” which is her right as a goddamned American.

I am not sure you understand the import of the word "or" in a statute.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

I actually assumed the monkey was joking, so you're either whiffing or the monkey's an asshole.

Can't it be both?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

Can't it be both?

Odds point to YES

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I am not sure you understand the import of the word "or" in a statute.

Right, and I’m saying you can’t establish "failed" or "refused" when she stopped voluntarily. Texas could write a better criminal statute but didn’t.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Right, and I’m saying you can’t establish "failed" or "refused" when she stopped voluntarily. Texas could write a better criminal statute but didn’t.

I'm waiting for you to offer up that defense in the next miles-long car chase where the person eventually pulls over and gets out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Right, and I’m saying you can’t establish "failed" or "refused" when she stopped voluntarily. Texas could write a better criminal statute but didn’t.

I think I could.

You're saying they could have included some quantity, "within 20 seconds of the flashers going on?" "within 1 block?" those don't take into account the quantity wouldn't always be appropriate. the statute is fine.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Looks are not important. Comfort and forcing me to maintain good posture is.

Leather or mesh?

Any recommendations?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Right, and I’m saying you can’t establish "failed" or "refused" when she stopped voluntarily. Texas could write a better criminal statute but didn’t.

Lawyered.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I'm waiting for you to offer up that defense in the next miles-long car chase where the person eventually pulls over and gets out.

You're fighting the hypothetical. At some point, continuing to drive becomes failing to stop. That's obvious. It also has nothing to do with what the Grinch said.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Looks are not important. Comfort and forcing me to maintain good posture is.

Leather or mesh?

Any recommendations?

There's this place on Fullerton. It's called the Leather Rose. I'm quite certain you could find plenty of help there.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I honestly do not see the point of your question. If you're actually asking whether you bear some blame when the person you are attacking has a gun and retaliates with it, I suppose you do. It's probably a much, much smaller percentage of the blame depending on the situation.

TM

This is essentially my point. But the person with the gun is a uniformed police officer. And we probably disagree somewhat on the percentage of blame.

Let's say I take the El down to the South Side of Chicago. One of the bad parts (not Hyde Park). I walk down the street and start yelling the N word, and then I turn around and walk back towards the El. Wouldn't that be a really stupid thing to do? Wouldn't you call me a fucking idiot? Do I deserve to get shot? No. Do I deserve to get my ass beaten? Probably. Am I partially to blame if I get shot? I think so. No one has a legal basis to shoot me or attack me, but it shouldn't be surprising that my idiotic behavior resulted in such a reaction.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I still think that’s bullshit because the Texas Transportation Code requires that she “wilfully fails or refuses to bring the vehicle to a stop or flees, or attempts to elude, a police officer.” If she slowly climbed the parking structure, I don’t think she committed an offense because Texas failed to incorporate a requirement that one pull over at the first safe opportunity.

Or maybe the charge was “trolling a police officer,” which is her right as a goddamned American.

For some odd reason, this post makes me kind of love you, in a not-oriface-related way.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My first instinct would have been that the cop pulled her over looking for a date. But what she did seems really stupid - she pulled into an enclosed space and drove deep into it? I always tell my kids that if the cops stop you, pull over in a place that is clearly visible and public. You realize if anything happened, Flinty would say it was her fault.

Flinty would only say that if she was showing a lot of cleavage.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Agreed, but when officers talk about failing the attitude test, they’re enforcing a set of norms we haven’t voted on. A public defender here in SF was cuffed and detained for an hour yesterday for trying to talk to her client (who was neither under arrest nor then in custody) in the hallway of the courthouse because it “interfered” with the police asking her client some questions. Hilarious and sickening at the same time.

Holy shit -- I just searched that and watched the video. They arrested her for "resisting arrest." How can you claim someone is resisting arrest when you were not previously trying to arrest her? She was talking to her client.

She very intelligently remained professional and calm throughout (she also knew it was being videoed). Balls of steel.