all 73 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 113 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Friendly reminder that the reason we get funny headlines like this from Florida is that the state allows the media full access to their police records so they can find stories like this

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    “Innocent until proven guilty” but also your photo is published for posterity so when someone puts your name into their favourite search engine it’s the first thing to pop up, next to a crime you didn’t commit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    The alternative is you try to find Jimmy but he's fucking gone. The state took him away and there is no record. He's just gone, arrested, sent who knows where.

    Though the point is moot because now the federal government is doing that everyday to whoever they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    In theory, however it also publicises stories of wrongfully accused people for example. This can have some unwanted and serious repercussions.

    All in all I tend to believe that it's better to let the judicial system work in peace and without an excess of publicity.

    I'm not usian though, so I'm not considering the monetary angle.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 40 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Defendant: Nuh, uh. Everyone knows it’s called “DWI”—driving while intoxicated—which doesn’t really help me either, does it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "Your honor, I was not being influenced by the drink I had. It did not say or act in any way such that my behavior would change. Secondly, I was not driving while intoxicated. Intoxicated as defined by the dictionary literally says 'stupefied by alcohol.' that cannot have happened because at no point was I stupid."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    and it doesn't matter when the drinking happened

    "Checkmate, I injected it!!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lawyer: Dude, this defense is so rock solid.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    When someone said they don't drink:

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    This is how little kids argue. lol

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wait, her argument is it's the act of drinking (actually passing the liquid into your mouth) that's illegal?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    i guess she's going by the "don't drink and drive" rule, a little too literally. but the law obviously doesn't say that; it says under influence/while intoxicated, so even on a technicality she doesn't pass.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    In Germany, you are allowed to drink while driving if you stay below the limit.

    You will 100% get pulled over for a funny test, though.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Interesting. In the US, most jurisdictions have open container laws: A drink needs to be either factory sealed or in a place where it is not readily accessible (such as a trunk) or the driver is in violation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    There have definitely been times when I was buying alcohol and carrying it in the front was most convenient, but I gave it a second thought. Definitely put it in back so it’s never a question

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I hope this is the beginning of a new Sovereign Citizen style movement that uses hyper-literal misinterpretations of the law as a defense.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I feel like the law is not drunk driving but something more like "operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above something something..."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it's usually Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), not, "Drinking and Driving." But its not like facts have any influence over the Sovereign Citizen movement, so I don't see why we should start here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Everyone knows the rules of Kario Mart.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    When I was like 4 I went nuts on my mom for drinking and driving. Nevermind that it was a diet coke...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah, the magic word in the law isn't "driving." It's "while intoxicated." You don't suddenly stop being drunk when you put your beer away. Human physiology doesn't work that way.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Listen up liberal MADD atheists! If you tell us to not drink and drive, then don't make shit up, when we drink when not driving. This is just like the IRS going after criminal fraudulent conservative religious groups. It's a witch hunt!!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I'm not driving, I'm traveling! 😁

    (I used to hate SovCits, but honestly tho, now Americans need more "SovCits" more than ever, there's not enough resistance. I kinda sympathize with them now, they're just a little confused, but got the spirit. Where all the "anti-tyranny" people at? 🤔)

    (Edit: And yes I see the article is from 2024)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I don't think sovcits care about the larger picture of legalism, per se, as much as finding loopholes in it that they can then close after themselves. The ones who want to share their, uh, "discoveries" about manipulating The Man seem to want to sell what they know at a premium.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    My spirit animal

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    making fun of people's mugshots is conservative slop

    imagine finding it fun to humiliate people you've captured with your unlimited monopoly on state violence, seems pretty fash cucked to me

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I agree with the sentiment but there isn't a single post in this thread commenting on the appearance of the mugshot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    zoom out a little bit there chief

    what do you think was the state's point in generating that mugshot? what do you think the memer's point was in using their photograph? that's probably a real human being and you know nothing about them, including whether or not they were even charged with the crime mentioned in this boot licker meme.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Im not seeing any other comments here talking about her looks?

    And i think going after drunk drivers is one of the things im pretty okay with the state using its 'unlimited monopoly on violence' for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments