HCSOThrowaway comments on 111 mph: Brevard Deputy of the Year avoids arrest under Florida ‘Super Speeder’ law

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (9 children)

Sounds like you've had unusual experiences with the courts. I can't force you to base your opinion off of more typical experiences, in large part because you haven't lived other people's lives (or looked into their court cases).

Back to my metaphor, if a seat-belt trapped me in my car, I wouldn't decide that must be normal and I should never wear a seat-belt again.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

I agree about seatbelts - though if I lived 3 or 4 near-death experiences where seat belts made my outcome worse instead of better, I'd probably say to hell with the odds...

I know a lot of people who have spent time in the court system, other than ambulance chaser backed situations, I don't know many happy with the outcomes.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

I'm not saying you don't have cause to be a bit silly about this, I'm just trying to get you to realize you're being a bit silly about this.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

Not only the courts, I find many areas of life where "right and wrong" are best treated as a sort of ideal, aspirational thing, not something to invest a lot of energy in upholding - if you're interested in overall quality of life. Especially when dealing with our (disabled) children and the school system, but also medical malpractice and other situations, there are fights we could have taken to court, fought hard - at great personal expense not only of legal fees but also time and emotional energy - and won the court case, but lost overall in terms of achieving the things we really cared about - that time and money was put to much more productive and life enhancing uses than "making a stand and proving the injustice." You can argue that we "shirked our duty to society" by allowing the injustices to continue, I argue that society shirked its duty to itself by making tthe injusticies so individually costly to expose and correct.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

I don't know what to tell you other than that we live in a brutal, unfair universe and are forced to do our best.

The only thing worse than having courts (which by nature of being comprised of human beings, often get things wrong) is not having courts.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

The only thing worse than having courts (which by nature of being comprised of human beings, often get things wrong) is not having courts.

I agree to that, 100% - they do make life overall better by their existence. Where I disagree is: they don't usually make individuals' lives better by participation in them. There's a certain "civic duty" aspect to participation in the system, but I strongly believe that taking cases to court, and winning the trial decision, but failing to make a real difference to society going forward - failing to ensure that the injustice will happen less in the future - is just a waste of time and irresponsible enrichment of lawyers.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children)

I guess you may not know that court can still levy judgements against you ex-parte (generally, civil), or just put a warrant out for you to force you to come (generally, criminal).

"I don't want to go to court" is like saying "I don't want to pay taxes." The government doesn't really care if you want to do it or not.

Yes, not putting your matches next to your lighter fluid is a great idea (we should focus on "making a real difference" to prevent needing court), but you still need fire hoses for when you get unlucky and you have to fix a problem outside of your control (court).

But that's all just fluff if you think that cops seeing a dash cam will make them want to take you to court. I really think that's an incredibly rare cop that feels that way, and you seem to really think that's very common; I suspect if I polled a hundred cops I'd get roughly 0 that feel that way, but you'd probably insist those were an unusual 100 cops, or the ones in your area are different. I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

Of course all those things are true, which is why you generally want to live your life in such a way that doesn't get you dragged into court by others, either.

However - should you ever consider dragging anyone else into court and getting a civil monetary judgement against them, you may also want to consider that an awful lot of the type of people who go around doing things that would make such a judgement relatively easy to obtain, also live their lives in such a way that collecting any actual money from such judgements is exceptionally difficult. Again, making court a waste of time and energy.

cops seeing a dash cam will make them want to take you to court.

You're missing a subtlety here... cops don't take you to court, they send you (or your lawyer) to court. Rub a cop wrong and they give you a bogus citation which all they have to do is get a tsk tsk about not showing up to court for, but you either A) pay the citation, or B) pay a lawyer to show up to court to fight the citation for you, or C) spend your time and effort going to court yourself to fight it. Option B being more expensive than option A and option C being most expensive of all if you value your time in the least.

I really think that’s an incredibly rare cop that feels that way

Well, I've been around since the 60s, and interacted with a few cops over the years, and most of them have been pretty great people on the whole, the vast majority I'd say, on duty and off. Still, I have interacted with several who did get petty and vindictive and have been tweaked by signs of "anti-cop-paraphernalia" in one's possession, and I suppose when you offset those against all the "good cops" I have interacted with, I get that feeling that "anti-cop-paraphernalia" really does piss them off. All the online videos of cops in the 2000-2020 era trying to beat up people filming them with cell phones doesn't help either.

I can’t reason you out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into.

Likewise.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

However - should you ever consider dragging anyone else into court and getting a civil monetary judgement against them, you may also want to consider that an awful lot of the type of people who go around doing things that would make such a judgement relatively easy to obtain, also live their lives in such a way that collecting any actual money from such judgements is exceptionally difficult. Again, making court a waste of time and energy.

"Only poor people commit crime or injure others."

Nope.

You’re missing a subtlety here… cops don’t take you to court, they send you (or your lawyer) to court. Rub a cop wrong and they give you a bogus citation which all they have to do is get a tsk tsk about not showing up to court for, but you either A) pay the citation, or B) pay a lawyer to show up to court to fight the citation for you, or C) spend your time and effort going to court yourself to fight it. Option B being more expensive than option A and option C being most expensive of all if you value your time in the least.

You start off by puffing out your chest in an attempt at pedantry and then just use synonyms in this context. Besides, literally none of that contradicts anything I've said and just largely ignores it.

Well, I’ve been around since the 60s, and interacted with a few cops over the years, and most of them have been pretty great people on the whole, the vast majority I’d say, on duty and off. Still, I have interacted with several who did get petty and vindictive and have been tweaked by signs of “anti-cop-paraphernalia” in one’s possession, and I suppose when you offset those against all the “good cops” I have interacted with, I get that feeling that “anti-cop-paraphernalia” really does piss them off. All the online videos of cops in the 2000-2020 era trying to beat up people filming them with cell phones doesn’t help either.

Neat anecdotes, but nobody should be convinced by anecdotes.

For the dozenth time, you are generalizing from a very small data set and acting like that makes you wiser; it doesn't.

See if this makes sense to you:

"I crossed the street and stubbed my toe, therefore crossing the street results in stubbed toes, so I don't leave my house any more."

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 point 2 months ago

also live their lives in such a way that collecting any actual money from such judgements is exceptionally difficult. Again, making court a waste of time and energy.

“Only poor people commit crime or injure others.” Nope.

You don’t have to be poor, you just have to have your assets legally protected from seizure via civil judgement. Cross the wrong line in the woods and a wildlife officer can confiscate your boat and the truck and trailer you brought it in on. Do all kinds of terrible things ending up in judgements of virtually any amount, and if your primary residence is a million dollar mansion, the courts can’t touch it. I rented a room in a very nice compound while at University, paid $400 per month to the landlord who lived in “the big house” - turns out they only still had the house because it was protected under law from seizure - dad was in jail for fencing stolen cars, my rent, and the two women who rented the tennis cabana… free and clear to the family.

you are generalizing from a very small data set and acting like that makes you wiser; it doesn’t.

Life’s a bitch, and then you die. Your superior data set, you got provenance on that data? You trust it implicitly beyond your personal experiences? That’s a comfortable place to live, until it isn’t. My parents both taught science for 40+ years at various levels. They quit counting the number of times that “facts” they had been taught were overturned by newer, better, more solid findings - after less than 10 years of teaching. That’s the nature of science, and life. Data surrounding public safety officers has been, in my personal life experience, of wildly varying quality but almost always slanted in the direction of improving trust in our sworn officers of the law - improving it beyond what it actually merits.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent