9 ms·

> It isn't the neighbors job to be mentally functional. I'm not sure I agree. One of the requirements for an adult citizen in a civil society is to be reasona

by pdonis 4y ago

> It isn't the neighbors job to be mentally functional. I'm not sure I agree. One of the requirements for an adult citizen in a civil society is to be reasonable in your dealings with neighbors. > It is, however, the police's, DA, and CPS's job. "Mentally functional" does not necessarily mean "giving citizens a break". The criminal law that the mom was charged with is a law, it's on the books, and law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law. They do have a certain amount of discretion, but the incentives they are facing, particularly in a community which is strongly in favor of "law and order" (which I suspect the one in question is), are against their exercising discretion in favor of a citizen. And putting the "sex trafficking" thing into the mix just makes it worse. The only real way to fix this is to remove things like this from the discretion of law enforcement by not having a law like this in the first place. (Unfortunately, it appears that when the law was revised to allow kids more independence, they only revised the family law code, not the criminal code. They should have revised both. So I would say the ultimate fault here is the legislature, for being incompetent when making law.)

bengy5959 4y ago
Should someone get a ticket for going 66 mph in a 65 zone? I don't really think officer discretion is avoidable to a certain degree. Laws can never be written perfectly. There are always going to be ridiculous edge cases like this where a reasonable person would know the law shouldn't be applied. This is why so much legal precedent is based on what a reasonable person would do or what a reasonable person would assume given a certain situation. I do agree that the neighbor should not be let off on this, nor am I trying to excuse their behavior. But there are always going to be Karens that call the cops for no reason and the system has to be able to deal with that.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Should someone get a ticket for going 66 mph in a 65 zone? Speed limit laws should not even exist in the first place. They are a paradigmatic example of laws that are unreasonable and should not exist. The fact that it is impossible to enforce them as written, or even with light-years of as written, is one reason for that. > I don't really think officer discretion is avoidable to a certain degree. To a certain degree, yes. But it should be limited. In the system we have now, it's not; the scope of laws on the books is huge, to the point that all of us are probably technically violating multiple laws every day, and we are all relying on a huge amount of discretion on the part of law enforcement to allow us to go about our business without continually being interrupted. That's not good. > there are always going to be Karens that call the cops for no reason and the system has to be able to deal with that. Yes, and the way to deal with it is to have the law be reasonable. It is not to have lots of unreasonable laws on the books and then hope that law enforcement exercises discretion in practically all cases, only actually prosecuting the "really serious" ones. It's to not have unreasonable laws on the books at all, so when a Karen calls the cops for no reason, the cops can just say "Ma'am, that's not against the law, nothing for us to do."
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    So you think there’s nothing wrong with blowing through a school zone at 150mph? Speed limit laws are clearly flawed in many ways but there is a clear reason why they should exist.
    - trinovantes 4y ago
      Speed limits (in North America) are simply the 85th percentile speed of drivers on a specific type of road. The onus should be on the civil engineer who designed the road to make it physically impossible to go 150 in the first place - e.g. narrow/curved lanes, speed bumps, concrete bollards, trees on the sides, etc. If roads are actually designed properly, then speed limit laws are unnecessary because drivers will naturally slow down to avoid damaging their vehicle or themselves.
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        To some extent I agree with you but I think intentionally wild, reckless driving would still exist and need to be controlled even with smarter road design.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > So you think there’s nothing wrong with blowing through a school zone at 150mph? I have said no such thing. Do you really believe that the law is the only thing that defines what's "wrong"? > Speed limit laws are clearly flawed in many ways but there is a clear reason why they should exist. No, what is clear is that the law should be written to penalize actual harm. Speed limit laws don't do that. They penalize people who have caused no harm, and because they can only be enforced arbitrarily--who gets stopped for speeding has nothing to do with actual risk reduction--they reduce people's respect for the law in general. A properly written law for "rules of the road" for speed would be something like this: The posted "speed limit" on any public road is advisory; you cannot be stopped or ticketed simply for driving faster than the posted limit. However, if you are in an accident and it is found that you were exceeding the posted limit, you are presumed to be at fault. (You can still rebut the presumption, but that requires going to court and presenting evidence and having the judge rule in your favor based on that evidence.)
kelnos 4y ago
The actions of the neighbor is something we can't control for, because we can't control the attitudes and behaviors of people. We can only influence them to some degree. What we can control is the law, and law enforcement response. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if people everywhere acted rationally and only stuck their nose into other people's business when it is actually necessary and useful to do at. But it's not realistic to expect that we can "fix" everyone, so we should focus on the things we can fix instead.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > The actions of the neighbor is something we can't control for, because we can't control the attitudes and behaviors of people. We can only influence them to some degree. I agree, but this is perfectly consistent with what I said. Not every adult meets the requirements for an adult citizen in a civil society. That doesn't mean those requirements don't exist. > What we can control is the law, and law enforcement response. To the extent this is true, it does not preclude also expecting adult citizens to be reasonable. Indeed, the more we can count on that, the less people will feel the need to invoke the law. Which makes it much easier to make the law more reasonable.
emodendroket 4y ago
They put “sex trafficking” into the mix themselves despite conceding it isn’t even happening, to their knowledge, in the area.

by pdonis 4y ago

bengy5959 4y ago

Should someone get a ticket for going 66 mph in a 65 zone? I don't really think officer discretion is avoidable to a certain degree. Laws can never be written perfectly. There are always going to be ridiculous edge cases like this where a reasonable person would know the law shouldn't be applied. This is why so much legal precedent is based on what a reasonable person would do or what a reasonable person would assume given a certain situation. I do agree that the neighbor should not be let off on this, nor am I trying to excuse their behavior. But there are always going to be Karens that call the cops for no reason and the system has to be able to deal with that.

pdonis 4y ago
> Should someone get a ticket for going 66 mph in a 65 zone? Speed limit laws should not even exist in the first place. They are a paradigmatic example of laws that are unreasonable and should not exist. The fact that it is impossible to enforce them as written, or even with light-years of as written, is one reason for that. > I don't really think officer discretion is avoidable to a certain degree. To a certain degree, yes. But it should be limited. In the system we have now, it's not; the scope of laws on the books is huge, to the point that all of us are probably technically violating multiple laws every day, and we are all relying on a huge amount of discretion on the part of law enforcement to allow us to go about our business without continually being interrupted. That's not good. > there are always going to be Karens that call the cops for no reason and the system has to be able to deal with that. Yes, and the way to deal with it is to have the law be reasonable. It is not to have lots of unreasonable laws on the books and then hope that law enforcement exercises discretion in practically all cases, only actually prosecuting the "really serious" ones. It's to not have unreasonable laws on the books at all, so when a Karen calls the cops for no reason, the cops can just say "Ma'am, that's not against the law, nothing for us to do."
- emodendroket 4y ago
  So you think there’s nothing wrong with blowing through a school zone at 150mph? Speed limit laws are clearly flawed in many ways but there is a clear reason why they should exist.
  - trinovantes 4y ago
    Speed limits (in North America) are simply the 85th percentile speed of drivers on a specific type of road. The onus should be on the civil engineer who designed the road to make it physically impossible to go 150 in the first place - e.g. narrow/curved lanes, speed bumps, concrete bollards, trees on the sides, etc. If roads are actually designed properly, then speed limit laws are unnecessary because drivers will naturally slow down to avoid damaging their vehicle or themselves.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      To some extent I agree with you but I think intentionally wild, reckless driving would still exist and need to be controlled even with smarter road design.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > So you think there’s nothing wrong with blowing through a school zone at 150mph? I have said no such thing. Do you really believe that the law is the only thing that defines what's "wrong"? > Speed limit laws are clearly flawed in many ways but there is a clear reason why they should exist. No, what is clear is that the law should be written to penalize actual harm. Speed limit laws don't do that. They penalize people who have caused no harm, and because they can only be enforced arbitrarily--who gets stopped for speeding has nothing to do with actual risk reduction--they reduce people's respect for the law in general. A properly written law for "rules of the road" for speed would be something like this: The posted "speed limit" on any public road is advisory; you cannot be stopped or ticketed simply for driving faster than the posted limit. However, if you are in an accident and it is found that you were exceeding the posted limit, you are presumed to be at fault. (You can still rebut the presumption, but that requires going to court and presenting evidence and having the judge rule in your favor based on that evidence.)

kelnos 4y ago

The actions of the neighbor is something we can't control for, because we can't control the attitudes and behaviors of people. We can only influence them to some degree. What we can control is the law, and law enforcement response. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if people everywhere acted rationally and only stuck their nose into other people's business when it is actually necessary and useful to do at. But it's not realistic to expect that we can "fix" everyone, so we should focus on the things we can fix instead.

pdonis 4y ago
> The actions of the neighbor is something we can't control for, because we can't control the attitudes and behaviors of people. We can only influence them to some degree. I agree, but this is perfectly consistent with what I said. Not every adult meets the requirements for an adult citizen in a civil society. That doesn't mean those requirements don't exist. > What we can control is the law, and law enforcement response. To the extent this is true, it does not preclude also expecting adult citizens to be reasonable. Indeed, the more we can count on that, the less people will feel the need to invoke the law. Which makes it much easier to make the law more reasonable.

emodendroket 4y ago

They put “sex trafficking” into the mix themselves despite conceding it isn’t even happening, to their knowledge, in the area.