Can someone explain Civil and criminal court to me?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

To respond to your quote about...

"The guy posting that is from Canada, and perhaps it works that way there. He then wants to transpose whatever legal knowledge he has from Canada and pretend it works verbatum here......"

I post my previous quote...

"Oh, and I make my living in the legal word. And while I am not up to as much speed as you may be about American law, Canadian law I know inside and out."

Never pretended it was the same, but when it comes right down to it, case law is case law, and both system were spawned from the same school of thought.

J

How do you make your living in the legal, "word?" Are you a court clerk or something?

Since you won't readily post your legal knowledge, I will post mine. I'm not an attny. I have a recent BS in Justice and am a process server. But whatever qualifications a person has are somewhat irrelevant. Meaning that there are people out there that have quite an extensive resume of legal experience and might only have moderate knowledge, and somethat have no documentalble experience and are sharp.

I watch a lot of trials and read a lot tho. You need to realize that absolute statements shouldn't be used in the law, as just when you think you have it figured out, they throw you a curveball.

case law is case law,

Which is a form of Stare Decisis. Just because precident is written doesn't mean it's followed or applied. You need to undestand that justice is so manipulated by the judge that it can be subjective.

... both system were spawned from the same school of thought.


Are you trying to say English Common Law? I can't speak for Canada, but teh US was established by that. In the US you can realize such different interpretation of the law that it ludicrous to say that it's a consistent system. DO you know about Federal District Courts?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In the US you can realize such different interpretation of the law that it ludicrous to say that it's a consistent system. DO you know about Federal District Courts?

Google the Erie Doctrine. Actually, the system is better now...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

In the US you can realize such different interpretation of the law that it ludicrous to say that it's a consistent system. DO you know about Federal District Courts?

Google the Erie Doctrine. Actually, the system is better now...

You are a lawyer, I'm sure you see many more cases of differences in justice than I do. Without looking at the doctrine, do you think any writ can removem "The way it's done" from the law/courts?

I had a traffic ticket I appealed to the State Sup Ct where the lower court judge failed to read oath, the Supreme Court, the first and only level that guarantees an appeal gave me some BS state precident about a hispanic witness that wasn't read oath after that judge did read it to the interpreter.

I just sued a former emplyer and lost, of course in lower court, and all four defendants didn't file disclosures after I did so in a tilely fashion, one of the 4 didn't even file an answer. Seriously, we have enough doctrine and writ to choke a horse, doctrine that's suposed to ensure equal protection/access to the courts/etc., but with gross corruption do you really think things will change?

Thanks for the response tho....

[fenceline 0]

Thanks fallingchip for saying it so much clearly than I was getting across. Those are the same guidlines police in Canada follow.

And no EBSB52, not a clerk. Little bit more proactive in helping my community. As for fallingchip being "all about finding guilt", sometimes people are guilty and shouldn't be found not guilty by the way process is served.

J

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm sure you see many more cases of differences in justice than I do

I occasionally see instances of injustice. On occasion, it happens to my client with me in charge. I've never seen injustice happen to my adversary party.

Usually, the system gets it right, though. Not always, but the vast majority of the time.

There are always ways around things. Sometimes I have cases against people that are unrepresented. Usually the ones who do well are the ones ho know that they don't know what they are doing. People who think they know what they are doing usually get screwed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Thanks fallingchip for saying it so much clearly than I was getting across. Those are the same guidlines police in Canada follow.

And no EBSB52, not a clerk. Little bit more proactive in helping my community. As for fallingchip being "all about finding guilt", sometimes people are guilty and shouldn't be found not guilty by the way process is served.

J

Bottom line: Speeding is aginst the law - there is no legal and written exception to cops for speeding, hence, the law stands, just has no teeth as far as cops are concerned.

And no EBSB52, not a clerk.

It'll remain a big secret then.

As for fallingchip being "all about finding guilt", sometimes people are guilty and shouldn't be found not guilty by the way process is served.


HUH???

Thanks for speding so much time painstakingly answering all the refutations to your assertions.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure you see many more cases of differences in justice than I do

I occasionally see instances of injustice. On occasion, it happens to my client with me in charge. I've never seen injustice happen to my adversary party.

Usually, the system gets it right, though. Not always, but the vast majority of the time.

There are always ways around things. Sometimes I have cases against people that are unrepresented. Usually the ones who do well are the ones ho know that they don't know what they are doing. People who think they know what they are doing usually get screwed.

I've never seen injustice happen to my adversary party

Hahahaha...they get all the breaks

Usually, the system gets it right, though. Not always, but the vast majority of the time.

I'll give you that, but if someone is sitting ina 6x9 and having their wife banged by someone else, that isn't too comforting to know it's a rarity.,

There are always ways around things. Sometimes I have cases against people that are unrepresented. Usually the ones who do well are the ones ho know that they don't know what they are doing. People who think they know what they are doing usually get screwed.

Right, humility goes a long way. I have a case filed against 3 lawyers and 2 real estate brokers now. The last thing I'm gonna do is walk in with my cock in my hand like I own the place. I'm freely admitting I'm over my head. The case is a slam-dunk, but I haven't done a perfect job prosecuting it.


The broker just got a civil suit filed by the County Attny, so that might help . The guy is a total pig of a human.

[fallingchip 0]

Quote

Bottom line: Speeding is aginst the law - there is no legal and written exception to cops for speeding, hence, the law stands, just has no teeth as far as cops are concerned.

Um...excuse me sir....over here.

Every state has this LAW on the books. Each state list it under their own General Statute(number)...



For North Carolina...
(N.C. G.S. 20-145) WHEN SPEED LIMIT NOT APPLICABLE

The speed limitations set forth in this article shall not apply to vehicles when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the police in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with or suspected of any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vehicles when traveling in response to a fire alarm, nor to public or private ambulances and rescue squad emergency service vehicles when traveling in emergencies, nor to vehicles operated by county fire marshals and civil preparedness coordinators when traveling in the performances of their duties. This exemption shall not, however, protect the driver of any such vehicle from the consequence of a reckless disregard of the safety of others. (1937, c. 407, s. 107; 1947, c. 987; 1971, c. 5; 1977, c. 52, s. 3; 1985, c. 454, s. 5.)


Google AZ motor vehicle law and look under "speed exemption" or something in reference to that and you shall find what you don't want to exist.

______________________________________________
"A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Bottom line: Speeding is aginst the law - there is no legal and written exception to cops for speeding, hence, the law stands, just has no teeth as far as cops are concerned.

Um...excuse me sir....over here.

Every state has this LAW on the books. Each state list it under their own General Statute(number)...



For North Carolina...
(N.C. G.S. 20-145) WHEN SPEED LIMIT NOT APPLICABLE

The speed limitations set forth in this article shall not apply to vehicles when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the police in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with or suspected of any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vehicles when traveling in response to a fire alarm, nor to public or private ambulances and rescue squad emergency service vehicles when traveling in emergencies, nor to vehicles operated by county fire marshals and civil preparedness coordinators when traveling in the performances of their duties. This exemption shall not, however, protect the driver of any such vehicle from the consequence of a reckless disregard of the safety of others. (1937, c. 407, s. 107; 1947, c. 987; 1971, c. 5; 1977, c. 52, s. 3; 1985, c. 454, s. 5.)


Google AZ motor vehicle law and look under "speed exemption" or something in reference to that and you shall find what you don't want to exist.

I will check that N. Carolina statute later to verify validity. I will take your word for it for now tho. North Carolina, the state that gave us the Rule of Thumb. (you can beat your wife with a stick, so long as it's no bigger in diameter than your thumb.

I realize that was overstated and that there was no real finding by the State Sup Ct, but there was some refernece to it.

...with due regard for safety under the direction of the police in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law...

OK, so is it with due regard for safety to pursue someone that is suspected of speeding by driving 80 in a 45 through an intersection? Even with that law, if every state has one, which I'm not convinced, there is a reasonable standard.

That DPS cop that ran the light at over 60 in a 40 when dispatch told him to call off, killed a 25 yo college kid. That cop plead to manslaughter and got the usual professional courtesy break of 6 months work release. SO where was that law then? Truth is, it's not fun for a cop to have ecorded instruments out there where the cop advocates driving twice the limit to bag a couple hundred for the city/state.

[fallingchip 0]

Quote

OK, so is it with due regard for safety to pursue someone that is suspected of speeding by driving 80 in a 45 through an intersection? Even with that law, if every state has one, which I'm not convinced, there is a reasonable standard.

That DPS cop that ran the light at over 60 in a 40 when dispatch told him to call off, killed a 25 yo college kid. That cop plead to manslaughter and got the usual professional courtesy break of 6 months work release. SO where was that law then? Truth is, it's not fun for a cop to have ecorded instruments out there where the cop advocates driving twice the limit to bag a couple hundred for the city/state.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you on this point. You just stated as FACT that there isn't any law that exist that allows officers to speed while performing their duty.

______________________________________________
"A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, so is it with due regard for safety to pursue someone that is suspected of speeding by driving 80 in a 45 through an intersection? Even with that law, if every state has one, which I'm not convinced, there is a reasonable standard.

That DPS cop that ran the light at over 60 in a 40 when dispatch told him to call off, killed a 25 yo college kid. That cop plead to manslaughter and got the usual professional courtesy break of 6 months work release. SO where was that law then? Truth is, it's not fun for a cop to have ecorded instruments out there where the cop advocates driving twice the limit to bag a couple hundred for the city/state.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you on this point. You just stated as FACT that there isn't any law that exist that allows officers to speed while performing their duty.

I'll address the, "You just stated as FACT" in the near future, but for now I have found this:

N.C. G.S. 20-145 (f) - Additional Statutory Limitations. G.S. 20 ' 145 Specificaly states this exception [to posted speed limit] shall not protect the driver from liabilty as a consequence of a reckless disregard for the safelty of others.

Translation - you be gettin' yo ass sued off if you hit someone ion the attempt to apply a raod tax for the state.

I reiterate, do you want to have an audio recording where you freely state you were doing 90 in a 45 to catch a speeder? If there is a kidnapped person in there, well, even then it's crazy but possibly excuseable,but for revenue? That was my point and I don't think I wrote that as a matter of fact there is no exception that allows cops to speed. I know of none in AZ. I will address that later.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, so is it with due regard for safety to pursue someone that is suspected of speeding by driving 80 in a 45 through an intersection? Even with that law, if every state has one, which I'm not convinced, there is a reasonable standard.

That DPS cop that ran the light at over 60 in a 40 when dispatch told him to call off, killed a 25 yo college kid. That cop plead to manslaughter and got the usual professional courtesy break of 6 months work release. SO where was that law then? Truth is, it's not fun for a cop to have ecorded instruments out there where the cop advocates driving twice the limit to bag a couple hundred for the city/state.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you on this point. You just stated as FACT that there isn't any law that exist that allows officers to speed while performing their duty.

OOPS, here's an example now:

http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/avery/class16/class16.htm

[fallingchip 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, so is it with due regard for safety to pursue someone that is suspected of speeding by driving 80 in a 45 through an intersection? Even with that law, if every state has one, which I'm not convinced, there is a reasonable standard.

That DPS cop that ran the light at over 60 in a 40 when dispatch told him to call off, killed a 25 yo college kid. That cop plead to manslaughter and got the usual professional courtesy break of 6 months work release. SO where was that law then? Truth is, it's not fun for a cop to have ecorded instruments out there where the cop advocates driving twice the limit to bag a couple hundred for the city/state.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you on this point. You just stated as FACT that there isn't any law that exist that allows officers to speed while performing their duty.

I'll address the, "You just stated as FACT" in the near future, but for now I have found this:

N.C. G.S. 20-145 (f) - Additional Statutory Limitations. G.S. 20 ' 145 Specificaly states this exception [to posted speed limit] shall not protect the driver from liabilty as a consequence of a reckless disregard for the safelty of others.

Translation - you be gettin' yo ass sued off if you hit someone ion the attempt to apply a raod tax for the state.

I reiterate, do you want to have an audio recording where you freely state you were doing 90 in a 45 to catch a speeder? If there is a kidnapped person in there, well, even then it's crazy but possibly excuseable,but for revenue? That was my point and I don't think I wrote that as a matter of fact there is no exception that allows cops to speed. I know of none in AZ. I will address that later.

These examples are in regards to negligence. I don't disagree with being accountable for negligence. Remember what I posted about speeding through school zone to catch a speeder?
Running red lights? Thats a different violation and I don't know of one state that allows police to do that without coming to a complete stop, making sure traffic has halted before continuing.
Kidnapped person, children, unknown persons in the vehicle? I won't continue the chase if it becomes high speed. That would be negligent. Passenger could be killed if a wreck occurs.
As for the DPS officer. He was found to be negligent by the D.A., thats why he was charged, and he plead to manslaughter. An innocent person is dead and thats horrible. I'm glad he isn't a cop anymore, but is plea isn't any different than those who plea everyday from First Degree Murder down to manslaughter all around the country. I don't agree with it but it happens.

Now back to what I am disagreeing with you on is:

Your Quote:

"Bottom line: Speeding is against the law - there is no legal and written exception to cops for speeding, hence, the law stands, just has no teeth as far as cops are concerned."

I simply pulled out my book of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Laws and posted the G.S. to show you the law does exist. The law in which I posted states that exceeding the speed limit in performance of duty is legal AS LONG AS NEGLIGENCE IS NOT USED.

I have called off chases that probably would have been seen in courts as justified. However, I don't think about lawsuits, loss of job, or jail when I'm engaged in chases. I am thinking of the safety of those nearby the chase, those involve with whatever incident that led to the chase and so on.
You're wasting your time pulling out examples of negligence. I agree with you on that issue.

______________________________________________
"A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt