Jump to content

JackDaWack

Members
  • Content Count

    7,746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14
  • Feedback

    100%

JackDaWack last won the day on August 19 2022

JackDaWack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,818 Excellent

2 Followers

About JackDaWack

  • Rank
    Wack Attack

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Sussex County
  • Home Range
    Cherry Ridge

Recent Profile Visitors

16,714 profile views
  1. Sign or not, businesses already have civil liability with respect to neglect of customer safety.
  2. I've been detained for 2 hours and had a vehicle illegally searched because I wasn't willing to share the details of my night.. where I was going or coming from. I was polite to the officer, and even in agreement why I was pulled over to begin with. BUT, for some reason if you don't participate in the phishing expedition you're somehow guilty of a crime. People seem to confuse the concept of being polite and respectful with being submissive to information. Seems like these positive experiences you guys detail aren't because you were polite and respectful, but because you simply offered any information that was requested of you. Personally, it's the cops that get argumentative. If I say I'm not willing to answer an unrelated question, that should kinda be the end of it, right? Not a 30 minute argument about how it's in my "best interest" to just answer the question.
  3. Well, we certainly don't share the same experience and I have never given a cop a poor attitude. I haven't had much interactions in the last 10 years, but when I was under 30 years old I can't think of many positives.
  4. Where did I encourage being an asshole? And how are my comments anti cop? I have and will always beleive that LEOs are there to do a job, and its my perspective they will hold you accountable for anything you tell them. I have offered information to cops when I was younger, I thought being open and truthful was the way to go. That got me screwed and ticketed for some silly shit I've never even seen in my life. So my Motto now is, keep your mouth shut at all costs... be respectful Ask yourself why that is? Why do Cops get so mad they will inconvenience you for simply stating your rights?
  5. That's kinda dependent on the officer. If you exercise a right, does that make for a shitty attitude? Or is it just that cops hate it when you do it?
  6. Thats exactly how I approached it. The playground is a specific area, and 99% of the time is fenced off from the general area. A 200 acre park isn't off limits because of a 200 square foot playground sits on it. The judge outlined we can carry in the public right of way around sensitive places. It's no different than walking along side a playground or school on a side walk the borders it. People are putting too much energy in things the TRO already satisfied.
  7. Kinda but its different for a TRO, and this case. It's kinda like a pre-trial, only what is immediately obvious. The TRO should follow throughout the case and basically be the final opinion unless something significant changes by then. Everything else basically needs to be argued that doesn't pose an urgency. The Judge seems rather open to waiving strict standing as means to consolidate the case efficiently.
  8. I beleive the statute says hubs. Can you get on a bus at a road stop and get off before a hub?
  9. There is a lot of legal grey area. If you get pulled over you can literally use your 1st ammendment right to tell the cop you are exercising your 5th Ammendment rights to self incrimination and will not be communicating with them. The law is also arguably a 4th Ammendment violation since you are required to disclose information of items you are in possession, which constitutes a defacto search. Since carrying a firearm is a legally protect act these days, I don't see how it's reasonable to demand such information from someone unless there was a specific reason other than "officer safety".
  10. And were they wide spread throughout the nation? Even today, only 12 states require a duty to inform. 100 years ago there were probably none... let alone 200 years ago.
  11. Correct, the TRO was denied on some counts simply because the plantiffs couldn't show they would be impacted before the PI. The judge said she wanted to hear everything at the PI, but stated without standing A TRO can't be granted in the mean time.
  12. Everything will be addressed at the PI stage. The only things granted in the TRO in laymans terms have a) a substantial chance to affect the plantiffs prior to the PI and B) have a high chance of success in winning at the PI stage. The judge said everything not granted a TRO will be fully worked through in the PI stage, buy everything else is also still on the table. Some blocked now could be allowed later if the state provides additional evidence or arguments.
×
×
  • Create New...