5 ms·

Sort of. They can't rule that intent is irrelevant if it's a necessary component of a given crime, for example. They have pretty wide latitude to run their cour

by pc86 6y ago

Sort of. They can't rule that intent is irrelevant if it's a necessary component of a given crime, for example. They have pretty wide latitude to run their courtroom how they wish, rule on admissibility of evidence, etc. but there are a decent number of things they're bound by. The problem is that some of these can only be fought on appeal which has a host of its own issues, including cost.

giantg2 6y ago
Yeah, but the stuff they are bound by can be violated by them misapplying the law. There's no real discipline or corrective action other than the appeal you mentioned, but even that doesn't ensure that it won't recur, or that similar mistakes won't happen at the next level. This happened recently as an example, there's a law that exempts dogs undergoing field training from being on a leash. There's no definition of field training in statute and the definition in the dictionary is very permissive (basically any action related to training a hunting/working dog). Under the principle of lenity, any ambiguity is supposed to be interpreted in favor of the defendant. The judge ruled that we were just playing fetch, even though we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law. The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss, and even contradictory rulings about trial de novo issues. Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. They can violate rights, misapply law, and even yell at you or tell you they won't hear your side all with no consequences because they claim ignorance, so they're "just mistakes" that you can pay for an appeal to hopefully fix. There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares.
- pc86 6y ago
  Ignoring the fact that obviously you've got a chip on your shoulder with regard to the judicial system, what the judge was doing makes total sense. They're trying to see if you were actually "field training" your dog or if you just wanted to play fetch. Expecting you to play fetch with a leashed dog is a whole other issue entirely. > we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law State laws vary but in mine, Game Wardens have identical powers to any other police officer. They have all the same arrest powers and have state-wide jurisdiction. Assuming it's the same in your state, and assuming you received some sort of citation or arrest that landed you in court in the first place, the judge at best has contradictory information from two equally relevant officers of the court. It's not exactly a slam dunk acquittal. > The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. The judge wasn't trying to determine whether you were following the law, this all goes to - as earlier in the thread - intent. If you just want to play fetch with your dog, you won't have any of this. But if you come loaded to bear with a bunch of training implements, treats, balls, whistles, etc., it's hard to argue that you're just playing fetch and not actually engaged in training. Any licensure or equipment would have supported your case. > There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss Almost everyone who has ever appeared in front of a court has claimed their rights were violated to the point where it's practically a meme. It's almost never the case. > Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. Same in my state - they're elected, and mainly hear traffic infractions, zoning disputes, and very small summary offenses. Thankfully, you can appeal to Common Pleas from a magistrate court for something like $30. But I know some states it can be hundreds for an appeal. > They can violate rights, misapply law I mean, there are (again, in my state) censure and impeachment proceedings for magistrates, and while not super common they do happen often enough that it's not a huge scandal or anything. Misapplication of law is exactly what the appeals process is for. > even yell at you My goodness! > There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. Simply not true. > We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares. What's more likely? 1. Every police officer, attorney, and court house, as well as every politician and all the media, doesn't care about widespread systemic violations of basic rights, documented wrongdoing, and misapplication of the law. 2. You're misinformed about the law.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Were you, in fact, just playing fetch? Training has some purpose. And that purpose speaks to intent. Reads to me like your intent was to play fetch and count on legal ambiguity. Was it?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I take her hunting and the activities at the park are part of training in a dynamic environment. It's not just fetch.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      That is not an answer. Did anything besides fetch happen at that park? I am asking to get at intent. It still appears the same to me. I have no new information.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Did you miss the part of the answer that says it's not just fetch?
        ddingus 6y ago
        Nope, but you missed the question of what happened in the park. :D Did anything other than fetch happen?
        giantg2 6y ago
        Then why did you say it was not an answer? The reason I didnt answer the other question is that it is not relevant. Another dog barked at and chased our dog after their owner couldn't hold onto the leash. That's not really important since not being able to hold the leash is a violation of the law. The other party didn't even have a dog license. They decided to call the police because that makes them the "victim" and protects them from their infractions. Not to mention, it's irrelevant. The law is stated in an absolute liability/immunity fashion. If you are involved in field training, then you are not in violation of the law (civil issues could still be brought if your property caused damages).

by pc86 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

Yeah, but the stuff they are bound by can be violated by them misapplying the law. There's no real discipline or corrective action other than the appeal you mentioned, but even that doesn't ensure that it won't recur, or that similar mistakes won't happen at the next level. This happened recently as an example, there's a law that exempts dogs undergoing field training from being on a leash. There's no definition of field training in statute and the definition in the dictionary is very permissive (basically any action related to training a hunting/working dog). Under the principle of lenity, any ambiguity is supposed to be interpreted in favor of the defendant. The judge ruled that we were just playing fetch, even though we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law. The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss, and even contradictory rulings about trial de novo issues. Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. They can violate rights, misapply law, and even yell at you or tell you they won't hear your side all with no consequences because they claim ignorance, so they're "just mistakes" that you can pay for an appeal to hopefully fix. There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares.

pc86 6y ago
Ignoring the fact that obviously you've got a chip on your shoulder with regard to the judicial system, what the judge was doing makes total sense. They're trying to see if you were actually "field training" your dog or if you just wanted to play fetch. Expecting you to play fetch with a leashed dog is a whole other issue entirely. > we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law State laws vary but in mine, Game Wardens have identical powers to any other police officer. They have all the same arrest powers and have state-wide jurisdiction. Assuming it's the same in your state, and assuming you received some sort of citation or arrest that landed you in court in the first place, the judge at best has contradictory information from two equally relevant officers of the court. It's not exactly a slam dunk acquittal. > The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. The judge wasn't trying to determine whether you were following the law, this all goes to - as earlier in the thread - intent. If you just want to play fetch with your dog, you won't have any of this. But if you come loaded to bear with a bunch of training implements, treats, balls, whistles, etc., it's hard to argue that you're just playing fetch and not actually engaged in training. Any licensure or equipment would have supported your case. > There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss Almost everyone who has ever appeared in front of a court has claimed their rights were violated to the point where it's practically a meme. It's almost never the case. > Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. Same in my state - they're elected, and mainly hear traffic infractions, zoning disputes, and very small summary offenses. Thankfully, you can appeal to Common Pleas from a magistrate court for something like $30. But I know some states it can be hundreds for an appeal. > They can violate rights, misapply law I mean, there are (again, in my state) censure and impeachment proceedings for magistrates, and while not super common they do happen often enough that it's not a huge scandal or anything. Misapplication of law is exactly what the appeals process is for. > even yell at you My goodness! > There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. Simply not true. > We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares. What's more likely? 1. Every police officer, attorney, and court house, as well as every politician and all the media, doesn't care about widespread systemic violations of basic rights, documented wrongdoing, and misapplication of the law. 2. You're misinformed about the law.
ddingus 6y ago
Were you, in fact, just playing fetch? Training has some purpose. And that purpose speaks to intent. Reads to me like your intent was to play fetch and count on legal ambiguity. Was it?
- giantg2 6y ago
  I take her hunting and the activities at the park are part of training in a dynamic environment. It's not just fetch.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    That is not an answer. Did anything besides fetch happen at that park? I am asking to get at intent. It still appears the same to me. I have no new information.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Did you miss the part of the answer that says it's not just fetch?
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Nope, but you missed the question of what happened in the park. :D Did anything other than fetch happen?
        giantg2 6y ago
        Then why did you say it was not an answer? The reason I didnt answer the other question is that it is not relevant. Another dog barked at and chased our dog after their owner couldn't hold onto the leash. That's not really important since not being able to hold the leash is a violation of the law. The other party didn't even have a dog license. They decided to call the police because that makes them the "victim" and protects them from their infractions. Not to mention, it's irrelevant. The law is stated in an absolute liability/immunity fashion. If you are involved in field training, then you are not in violation of the law (civil issues could still be brought if your property caused damages).