My DUI Charges Dropped! A Great Argument

As I understand it, on Sat, 05 May 2007 19:38:23 -0500,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Larry > wrote:
>>In article >,
>> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Larry > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >If everyone else walked around randomly shooting each other, it would be
>>> >safest for me to walk around and randomly shoot, too.
>>>
>>> No, it wouldn't. Not shooting wouldn't reduce your safety.
>>
>>Sure it would, because if I shot people first, they wouldn't be able to
>>shoot me. It's unlikely I'd shoot myself, after all.
>>
>>
>>> >As for the law being an ass, that's a reason to lobby for it to be
>>> >changed, not to violate it with abandon.
>>>
>>> The majority of the people subject to the law violate it the majority
>>> of the time they are subject to it.
>>
>>Sounds like a reason to ramp up sanctions for violating it.
>
>Yep, that's worked great for the war on drugs.
>

"Just say NO!" worked very well. Sadly, that idea was
abandoned in favor of "I didn't inhale."

>>> Yet the law stands.
>>
>>Because, in a democracy, the law was validly enacted and has not yet
>>been repealed or amended. And it passes all constitutional muster.
>>Nothing else is required for a law to be a law.
>
>Yes, procedure has been followed. That doesn't mean there's nothing
>wrong.

If procedure was followed, how could anything about it be
wrong? I'm not following you here.

>This is a democracy, yet there's a law that a majority of
>voters violate regularly, and there's no serious discussion of
>repealing it. There's something wrong, most definitely.
>

If there is no serious discussion of repealing it, then the
people must want it.

--
Kent
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 01:16:08 GMT, Larry >
wrote:

[...]

>
>> >> Yet the law stands.
>> >
>> >Because, in a democracy, the law was validly enacted and has not yet
>> >been repealed or amended. And it passes all constitutional muster.
>> >Nothing else is required for a law to be a law.
>>
>> Yes, procedure has been followed. That doesn't mean there's nothing
>> wrong. This is a democracy, yet there's a law that a majority of
>> voters violate regularly, and there's no serious discussion of
>> repealing it.
>
>And when slavery was abolished, that amendment was initially violated by
>a majority of voters. Should slavery have stayed in place because
>"everyone's doing it"?
>
>> There's something wrong, most definitely.
>
>Not at all. In a democracy, you're going to have some stupid laws.

In Iowa, it's illegal for a man to kiss a woman in public for
more than five minutes. A PERFECT example of a stupid law.

>You're going to have some laws passed for people or groups that have an
>agenda. And, unlike non-democratic societies, we can do something in
>response to those laws being passed. We can do lots of things, actually
>- most of which are more effective than whining on Usenet.
>

Whining on Usenet is a good way to find like-minded people.
It's clear Matthew isn't getting the number of people he needs to
effect any change this way.

>
>> >> That tells me the system's broken, and the means which members of
>> >> and apologists for the system suggest aren't going to work. Not
>> >> surprising; using the tactics one's opponents suggest is typically
>> >> a bad idea.
>> >
>> >So use your own tactics, and let me know how that works out for you.
>>
>> If I had any, I'd use them.
>
>You don't think there's ANYTHING you can do? What a sad, defeatest
>attitude to have.

No matter what, he's screwed. Very sad outlook.

--
Kent
No todos los que ven tus obras ven tus virtudes.

In article >,
Kent Wills > wrote:

> As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 01:44:38 GMT, Larry >
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >> One can "need" to do something while still having free will. If you
> >> >> chose to speed, you either did it on a whim, or you did it because you
> >> >> had some reason to. I'm not claiming you had a compulsion to speed to
> >> >> the point of losing your free will, I'm claiming you felt an
> >> >> obligation to speed for some reason, one which you over-rode your
> >> >> ordinary respect for the law.
> >> >
> >> >Nope, I felt no such obligation. I decided to do it for no reason other
> >> >than I could at that time.
> >>
> >> Seems rather out of character for a man who believes in the law.
> >
> >I do, which is why when I was caught, and I was in fact speeding, I paid
> >the fine. I'm not going to deny my guilt or waste anyone's time and
> >money by having the officer come to court and testify to what we both
> >know happened.
>
> You're far too mature and responsible for the likes of Mathew.

Oh, and I wasn't pulled out of the car by the officers and then maced
and beaten with batons for no reason (in another thread/discussion,
Matthew claims this is standard operating procedure for cops during
traffic stops)

In article >,
Kent Wills > wrote:

> As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 01:16:08 GMT, Larry >
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >> >> Yet the law stands.
> >> >
> >> >Because, in a democracy, the law was validly enacted and has not yet
> >> >been repealed or amended. And it passes all constitutional muster.
> >> >Nothing else is required for a law to be a law.
> >>
> >> Yes, procedure has been followed. That doesn't mean there's nothing
> >> wrong. This is a democracy, yet there's a law that a majority of
> >> voters violate regularly, and there's no serious discussion of
> >> repealing it.
> >
> >And when slavery was abolished, that amendment was initially violated by
> >a majority of voters. Should slavery have stayed in place because
> >"everyone's doing it"?
> >
> >> There's something wrong, most definitely.
> >
> >Not at all. In a democracy, you're going to have some stupid laws.
>
> In Iowa, it's illegal for a man to kiss a woman in public for
> more than five minutes. A PERFECT example of a stupid law.

Wait until you get the stupid laws book. Until then, be careful if
you're planning on going whale hunting in Utah. Or at least bring bail
money.

Larry wrote:
> In article > ,
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> >>
>>>>The majority of the people subject to the law violate it the majority
>>>>of the time they are subject to it.
>>>
>>>Sounds like a reason to ramp up sanctions for violating it.
>>
>>Yep, that's worked great for the war on drugs.
>
>
>
> It sure helped clean up major cities like New York in the 1980s and
> 1990s, when the major drug-selling gang leaders got sentences of
> hundreds and hundreds of years in prison.

Actually, it helped create the problems of cities like NYYC the first
place and if you think we're "winning" the war on some drugs, you're
sadly mistaken.

In article >,
"Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:

> Larry wrote:
> > In article > ,
> > (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> > >>
> >>>>The majority of the people subject to the law violate it the majority
> >>>>of the time they are subject to it.
> >>>
> >>>Sounds like a reason to ramp up sanctions for violating it.
> >>
> >>Yep, that's worked great for the war on drugs.
> >
> >
> >
> > It sure helped clean up major cities like New York in the 1980s and
> > 1990s, when the major drug-selling gang leaders got sentences of
> > hundreds and hundreds of years in prison.
>
> Actually, it helped create the problems of cities like NYYC the first
> place and if you think we're "winning" the war on some drugs, you're
> sadly mistaken.

"Winning" is relative. But after "just say no" and before New York
repealed the Rockefeller drug laws, drug use (and not just drug crime,
but surveys of use) was at an all-time low. Now that "just say no" has
been replaced and sentences have been lessened, drug use and drug crime
is on the rise.

Kent Wills wrote:
> As I understand it, on 5 May 2007 12:30:31 -0700, N8N
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On May 5, 2:20 pm, Kent Wills > wrote:
>>
>>>As I understand it, on Fri, 04 May 2007 19:24:28 -0400, Nate Nagel
>>>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's more likely than not. At no time did I write anything
>>>>>that can in any reasonable way be meant to say that driving after
>>>>>drinking will usually result in an accident.
>>>>> Your desperation is so great you are going into overdrive with
>>>>>the twisting of my comments.
>>>>> What's really sad is that you thought/think no one would
>>>>>notice.
>>>
>>>>It's not desperation,
>>>
>>> It's pure desperation.
>>>
>>>
>>>>it's your lack of understanding of the English
>>>>idiom. "more likely than not" actually means precisely what it says;
>>>>"more likely than not" = "probably." Therefore "driving after drinking
>>>>will more likely than not result in an accident" is equivalent to
>>>>"driving after drinking will probably result in an accident" which is
>>>>clearly a false statement.
>>>
>>> And, as you stated you understood, not what I meant.
>>> Now that we have your desperation out of the way, why not
>>>address the point I raised?
>>>
>>
>>I'm still not sure *exactly* what your point was, as it's still not
>
>
> So you lied when you stated you knew? How very sad.
>
>
>>clear from your previous post whether you are trying to say "if a
>>person drives while impaired, he will probably wreck" or "if a person
>>drives while impaired, his risk of wrecking is higher than if he
>>drives only while not impaired."
>
>
> The risk increases with each drink.
>
>
>>The first is so blatantly false it's not worth responding to, and the
>>second is self-evident.
>>
>
>
> Stop playing the semantics game. I doubt it's impressing
> anyone.
>

you're an idiot. Learn English.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Kent Wills wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sat, 05 May 2007 19:15:11 -0500,
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Kent Wills > wrote:
>>
>>>As I understand it, on Fri, 04 May 2007 14:02:54 -0500,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Screwed up the wording at least three times -- the original, replying
>>>>back to me, and refusing your offer to reword the statement.
>>>>Therefore I suspect he really does mean it the way he says it. Or is
>>>>incapable of comprehending the difference.
>>>
>>> Nate has already stated that he understood the meaning, which
>>>tells me that my point was made. That you need to try and nit-pic it
>>>tells me you probably understood (and understand) exactly what I was
>>>stating. Sadly, admitting I am correct means admitting you were and
>>>are in error, and you aren't going to do that.
>>
>>I understood what you were stating. I'm still not sure if that is
>>what you meant, because you both clearly re-iterated it and clearly
>>denied it a few posts ago. The most likely hypothesis is that you
>>don't understand the difference.
>
>
> Your kill file really sucks, huh?
> Proof that you are more than willing to lie aside...
>
> If you and Nate both understood the meaning, why are you using
> semantics to play the avoidance game?
>

Because we don't understand you because you don't speak (write?)
precisely. Now go learn what "more likely than not" means and come
back... um... in 50 years or so.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 07:39:18 -0400, Nate Nagel
> wrote:

>> If you and Nate both understood the meaning, why are you using
>> semantics to play the avoidance game?
>>
>
>Because we don't understand you because you don't speak (write?)
>precisely.

So you lied when you stated you understood the meaning. Got
it.

>Now go learn what "more likely than not" means and come
>back... um... in 50 years or so.

You claimed you understood. Now you're just playing the
avoidance game. It's getting old.

--
Kent
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 04:39:33 GMT, Larry >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Kent Wills > wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, on Sun, 06 May 2007 01:44:38 GMT, Larry >
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> >> One can "need" to do something while still having free will. If you
>> >> >> chose to speed, you either did it on a whim, or you did it because you
>> >> >> had some reason to. I'm not claiming you had a compulsion to speed to
>> >> >> the point of losing your free will, I'm claiming you felt an
>> >> >> obligation to speed for some reason, one which you over-rode your
>> >> >> ordinary respect for the law.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nope, I felt no such obligation. I decided to do it for no reason other
>> >> >than I could at that time.
>> >>
>> >> Seems rather out of character for a man who believes in the law.
>> >
>> >I do, which is why when I was caught, and I was in fact speeding, I paid
>> >the fine. I'm not going to deny my guilt or waste anyone's time and
>> >money by having the officer come to court and testify to what we both
>> >know happened.
>>
>> You're far too mature and responsible for the likes of Mathew.
>
>Oh, and I wasn't pulled out of the car by the officers and then maced
>and beaten with batons for no reason (in another thread/discussion,
>Matthew claims this is standard operating procedure for cops during
>traffic stops)

I want the name and badge number for these officers! Clearly
they aren't doing what Matthew thinks they should in regards to
issuing tickets. This can not stand!

--
Kent
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George