2 ms·
No, that's my point. They would not be permitted within 31m and they'd be stupid to try. That's the kind of pedantic crap that junior judges get pissed off with
by phaemon 10y ago
No, that's my point. They would not be permitted within 31m and they'd be stupid to try. That's the kind of pedantic crap that junior judges get pissed off with every day (depending on your country I guess). Round to 30m and realise that they really mean "not in your face" because you're an intelligent human being.
- manarth 10y agoThey would not be permitted within 31m Do you have a good justification for that claim? If a judge made a ruling that someone couldn't approach closer than 30.5m, and the subject was outside that limit, surely they are complying with the judge's instructions? I would find it hard to imagine a lawyer arguing "I know the judge said 30.5m, but that also includes 31m, and 32m - the judge meant that they can't be in the person's face". You don't find similar arguments for prosecuting someone driving at 1mph below the speed limit - "I know the limit's 70mph, but that's an absolute limit: 69mph is not OK either. Nor 68mph."
- phaemon 10y agoIt very possibly depends on your local laws, but I would check with a lawyer in your country before pushing that limit.