First year law student



I was driving on Beach Boulevard behind an ancient guy in a beat up truck.

He decides to turn in front of me without a blinker.

I accelerate to swerve and avoid him, and this, overaerobicized woman jumps in front of my car with her hand up.

She proceeds to yell in my window, "Hey, slow down you idiot!" I'm a well-bred, mellow guy by nature, so I ignore this.

As I drive away, she yells, "*******" at me again. Twice? I turn around and drive up next to her.

"Do you have a problem?" I ask.

"Yeah, why are you driving like an idiot?"

"I was driving like an idiot? How, exactly."

"You were speeding. I watched you."

"You were? I see. How did you measure my speed?" (Ever the interrogator, I am.)

"I heard you."

"So, you measured my speed by ear?"

"I can hear."

"How fast did you HEAR me going?"

"Look," she says, "I don't have to take this. Here comes a cop. I'll wave him down."

THE POLICE? This woman is a trip. She waves him down, and proceeds to tell him that she observed me speeding.

"What happened?" he asks. I told him the story, and told him that I accelerated to an indicated 33 mph (the speed limit is 35) to avoid a collision.

"Are those mufflers legal?" Ethel asks.

She's pushing it. I reply, "I have a C.A.R.B. exemption for them." I give the paperwork to the cop.

She tries to find another thing to screw me with. She says "What about those big tires? They CAN'T be legal." I began feeling little overheated gears in the back of my head start to turn.

"These tires were available on the 1970 Boss 429, "I told the cop," Which makes them street legal as a replacement."

Ethel gets angry. She whines, "So you're not going to give out any tickets to this ******?"

The cop says, "No, I am not."

I've about had it. So I say, "Sir, this woman told you that she left the street at the corner, and she met up with my car here. According to Title 39, pedestrians have to cross the street at a right angle. This woman admitted she crossed at a 45-degree angle, which is a ticketable offense."

"What?" The cop looks confused.

"Also, she told you that she walked in front of my car to stop me. A citizen can't detain someone without probable cause, under Terry v. Ohio (my new favorite case). Since she couldn't measure my speed, she had no probable cause to detain me. That is an indictable offense."

The cop says, "But, I didn't see any of this."

"But," I said, "I did, and, as an officer of the Court, I can demand her arrest. I'll agree to dismiss the Illegal Detention charge, but I want her cited for not crossing at a right angle and Hazardous Conduct on a Public Street."

The cop called his Lieutenant, and after the cop told the story, he authorized the summonses.

She went home with $215.00 worth of traffic tickets, and they are worth a total of four points against her license, as well as the appropriate insurance surcharge!  


Technorati Tags:

Comments



Thanks for demonstrating how

Thanks for demonstrating how the overabundance of inane laws can be a fantastic and useful tool for pushing around the less educated bullies. Can't wait till you're a judge someday. :/



Hahaha this is great.

Hahaha this is great. Anyone who says that the lawyer is a douche is retarded. If someone tries to screw you, and they're in the wrong, they deserve to be screwed themselves. This lady was a nosy bitch and she deserved it.



Really?

You people REALLY think commenting with hate on a subject like this will change the world or even the authors opinion?? Seriously!? I think you should all be glad that there's a lawyer out there who knows that much about the law instead of having some schmuck walk around thinking he knows everything but in fact has no idea about anything ever. I congratulate this guy. Sometimes the only time to deal with douche-bags who think they can do what ever they want is to be a douche-bag who thinks he can do what ever he wants. People are stubborn and will only stop patronizing when cornered. The only reason some of you disagree with this is because you would probably be the woman yelling at the driver.



Hm.

As a student training to be an officer, I have to ask. How is this being a douchebag? The laws are in place to protect people. If anything at all, this story is showing that people should keep up on their local laws.

You always hear stories about people getting fucked over by the cops, or lawyers, or whatever. Well, stop being so damned ignorant. These laws aren't a secret we keep from you. They are set in place specifically for you! Fucking brush up on them or stop whining when you're fed your own ignorance.



People like you..

Make me sick to my stomach. Yup, the woman was a stupid bitch. But you couldn't be content leaving at "no harm, no foul," could you? You had to use your authority to screw someone. I'll be frank, I don't even believe that an average person would know even know enough about tires or mufflers to question their legality. She probably just stopped you, and when the cop got there you decided to show her not to mess with a big tough guy like you. Lawyers are all lying sacks of shit.



People like YOU

I don't know if this story is true, but if it is, she deserved that. People like her (and most probably like you) need more authority. Maybe you've grown up with two parents who let you do you whatever you like, but the real world outside mommy's skirts, is different.



A: I don't see any lies in

A: I don't see any lies in his reasons for her tickets. If she hadn't crossed the road like that she'd have opened her trap about it and the other things are easily confirmable from the story and the various police officers accepting it. She broke three laws and as the officers must have agreed she made the road more dangerous through her inappropriate actions.

B: She's legitimately stupid. Putting your pedal down and accelerating is not the same as going over the speed limit but she evidently thought that the rotations per minute in the engine could never go so high without going over the speed limit- at like 30 miles an hour. You don't need to know how changing gears works to know that's crap so long as you've ever been on a freeway where they travel twice as fast (or three times as fast depending on the time of day,) and heard that the pitch doesn't change like that.
And she stepped out in front of a moving vehicle.

C: She was asking for it. Presumably the author wouldn't have bothered if this lady had just stopped at the officer saying he wasn't going to give out a ticket. But she pushed it. "Ok, it wasn't speeding but can't we give out a ticket for anything else? I don't like this person and want them to suffer for disagreeing with me" is what seems like th plain as day motivation running through her head.

Instead the situation became ironic in that her wanton lust for fines came around and bit her in the ass for two things she obviously should not have done, and then that 45 degree angle thing that probably makes more sense to people that have looked at the statistics for pedestrian accidents. Just a guess but charging her for that one instead of the illegal detention was probably a pretty drastic decrease in the severity of her punishment while by all rights she wasted numerous people's time because someone pushed their gas pedal down harder than she liked.



what?!? i see your point no

what?!? i see your point no harm no foul i guess. but why whould you say that? people like YOU make me sick to my stomach. you assume that because you hear ONE story about somone being a jack ass (i thought it was pretty awesome though) everyone is a jack ass of that proffesion. im a model, and people hear stories about eating disorders and assume i do all that too, but i dont. just because ONE EFFING LAWYER is "scum" all of them are too? your a lying sack of shit.



hahaha

she deserved it damn right she did, o and there is nothing wrong with hitting your kids



Awesome. (And you can

Awesome. (And you can accelerate to avoid an accident, it's called "getting out of the way". Slamming on the breaks isn't a cure all.)

Suppose what failed at going around did in fact come around.



NICE

NICE job, man. what an obnoxious woman. if it were up to me, they'd all be locked in a kitchen somewhere, but i guess i'm old fashion. anyways, good job!



Tall Story

What crap!



You are proud of this? YOU

You are proud of this? YOU drove back to HER, who cares if she was the biggest bitch in the world? You could have been done with it and went OUT OF YOUR WAY to inflict misery on this person. She is obviously miserable enough or she wouldn't be such a bitch. And you probably were driving like a dick... Congratulations for helping humanity achieve a new low, and bragging about it.



Two sides

On one hand, she's a fucking bitch for that especially since you were going 33 in a 35. Fuck that dumb bitch.

But, it took you way too much time (for the story to be cool) and effort (for you to be cool). If this could have been done in one bold move it would have been the shit.



how can people seriously be

how can people seriously be pissed that you did this. if the woman wasn't a raging psychotic bitch trying to bring a ticket to random people on the street she wouldn't have ended up walking home with $215 worth of tickets.



pretty sure that being a

pretty sure that being a first year law student does not make you "an officer of the Court"



Everybody STFU. This guy is full of WIN

If this guy is a douchebag, then he'd be one regardless of his career choice.

This lady tried to screw with him, and he fought back. He had the knowledge to do so and he won. If this means he's a douchebag, then I guess being good at what you do makes you a douchebag.

I think calling human beings "scum infesting the planet" is more douchebaggy than getting even with some lady who just wanted to mess with him.



Well played!

Well played, sir... It is completely within the law to pull such actions against people who make you mad. 'Power corrupts... Absolute power is a whole lot of fun!'



I'm completely on your side.

I'm completely on your side. I can't stand nosy c***s like that lady, and I wish I had such tricks up my sleeve as to deal with them. To everyone who called you a douchebag-she was trying to finagle tickets for you, turnabout is fair play. Bravo, I give you +50 points.



Nice!!!

If people read the title... It says first year law student... I really do think it is great when asshole people try to make life for others miserable and end up getting confirmation that do unto others as you would have them do unto you holds true... To those who thinks hes an ass... Would he have been an ass had he got ticketed for what she was pointing out?... Lets get real here... This lady made it her mission to have a negative impact on this guy... Sometimes people need a dose of reality that being a miserable asshole and trying to take everyone else around you on the trip with you means maybe you need to re-evaluate your life and what about it makes you such an ugly person... Maybe if people put that energy and effort into improving themselves and how they treat people, maybe life wouldnt be such a miserable experience... Kudos to you for standing up for yourself and teaching her how you treat others can in turn be how you are treated... Luffftttt it!!!



He calls the law correctly,

He calls the law correctly, which is one job of a lawyer. That he posts the story in this pigeon-breasted way is typical of a newly minted and still adolescent lawyer. This kind of braggadocio represents a common but unfortunate rite of passage. The reply comments typify a misplaced view of the important role lawyers serve in a law-based society, which is neither about counting coup nor victimizing people less privileged by education or manners. "Douche" is a term best left to vaginal hygiene and when used otherwise uncovers native stupidity or a purposeful adoption of ignorance by the speaker.



ignore all these other

ignore all these other assholes on this page that say youre a douchebag....i bet that if any of them were in your position they would do the exact same thing if not worse. i salute you sir



haters

personally i think all of you saying this guy is a jerk/scum are moronic. a lady intentionally trys to screw him over with no real reason then admits to doing so n so which was against the law, he points out her flaws, she gets in trouble for breaking laws that she admitted to breaking in fron of the police officer.

if she hadn't been such a hypocritical douche, she would have been fine.



amazing.

anyone who thinks this guy is a douchebag should be sent home with $215 of tickets.



Buddy you should be crowned.

Buddy you should be crowned. You're give me hope, that maybe someday the real idiot will keep their mouth shut.



Ya'll niggas mad

She was a bitch for no reason and just fucked with the wrong person. Deal with it. What she should've done was written down his license plate number and reported him, but instead she decided to break the law twice. Not this guy's fault.



first year law student

this is awesome. the lady got what she deserved. she was the douche bag, not the lawyer. first of all, its not her business, ethically. second of all, she presumes just because someone is driving a sports car they have to be a speeding law breaking a-hole.
here in detroit , most guys with a truly fine ride drive defensibly, and legally, only punching the gas in appropiate circumstances. She was really grasping for straws with her biased and ignorant interference. and because this guy not only knew his rights, the law (in drivers ed, speeding up to avoid a collision is legal, though not prefered because the nature of physics ...so it really depends on the competence of the driver), and the circumstances.
STOP the lawer douchebaggery comments....unless ya want to advertise your inability to infer what is fair and just ....... he knew his rights, and the ignorant lady got what she deserved.....for breaking the law. and admitting it to the cop.
if she wouldnt have vindictively tried to insist he was to blame, she wouldnt have been ticketed. furthermore, the cop wasnt clear on the issue, so he had to call a supervisor. this is because very few people these days bother to know their rights, and the cop was only clear on one thing....he'd better call his boss. and if someone reads this and Doesn't see the humor in it, then consider this. if you had been in his shoes, wouldnt you want an intelligent and observant legal defence there with you, or in court ? this is justice served. that why i know my rights. because theres few of them left, and more insistent immature people roaming this country everyday. and the cops arent too clear on how to respond, given their own education in justice....

heres to redlining the motor of justice.



All the people who say the

All the people who say the lawyer is a jerk, are idiots. That lady went out of her way to try and get him ticketed for doing nothing wrong, he rightly got his revenge. Maybe next time that lady won't be an annoying prick



I like this guy. This woman

I like this guy. This woman was a bitch and he got back at her. I'm glad she didn't get off scott-free. She's probably not going to be doing that again anytime soon, and she shouldn't be.
If I had been in the same situation I wouldn't have stopped for that lady at all. Just gone around.



Well Done

Ignore the asshats that hate lawyers by nature. You did what most of us would do, and you got another bitch off the road. I applaud you.



I love

...that the people calling you a douche-bag are praying to have lawyers like you (us) represent them when they need it. Education pays, my friends. Trying to make an argument out of passion and devoid of support does not--case in point.



Congratulations. You've

Congratulations. You've thoroughly demonstrated the douchebaggery that makes lawyers such well-loved rodents.



That's such bull. If

That's such bull. If anyone's a rodent, it's the lady who jumps out in front of someone's car and tries like hell to get them ticketed, only stopping when she's beaten at her own game. Douchebaggery is kicking a kitten. This is like getting jumped by a mountain lion and stabbing it in the balls.



I disagree. STRONGLY.

I disagree. STRONGLY. Sounds like she got what was coming to her. The only thing more infuriating than bad drivers is ignorant people. Well played sir, even if it does sort of measure on the d-bag-o-meeter. :)



Congratulations. You've

Congratulations. You've thoroughly demonstrated the douchebaggery that makes internet Anonymous chaps such well-loved rodents.

Fucking troll.



I love it

TO Congratulations. :
You are probably the offspring of this woman and have no more sense than she does. this idiot deserved everything she got and should have been arrested as well as she was clearly just trying to cause problems.

remember, she waved the cop down, not him.



i love you

i love you



So because she was

So because she was irrational, you decided to be an asshole? Isn't that sort of like spanking your child as a punishment for hitting someone? This doesn't make you look good, this makes you look like a very small, sad person. Why didn't you just drive away, and be the bigger person?



Hahahaha

to the guy who says "isn't that sort of like spanking your child?"

yes. and this women, like a child often does, needed to be spanked.



Spanking Children for hitting people

The following is an excerpt from Starship Troopers that I believe answers your opinions about punishment.

Mr. Dubois then demanded of me, "Define a 'juvenile delinquent.' "
"Uh, one of those kids — the ones who used to beat up people."
"Wrong."
"Huh? But the book said — "
"My apologies. Your textbook does so state. But calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit 'Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms, one which gives a clue to their problem and their failure to solve it. Have you ever raised a puppy?"
"Yes, sir."
"Did you housebreak him?"
"Err . . . yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house.
"Ah, yes. When your puppy made mistakes, were you angry?"
"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy.
"What did you do?"
"Why, I scolded him and rubbed his nose in it and paddled him."
"Surely he could not understand your words?"
"No, but he could tell I was sore at him!"
"But you just said that you were not angry."
Mr. Dubois had an infuriating way of getting a person mixed up. "No, but I had to make him think I was. He had to learn, didn't he?"
"Conceded. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? You said the poor beastie didn't know that he was doing wrong. Yet you indicted pain. Justify yourself! Or are you a sadist?"
I didn't then know what a sadist was — but I knew pups. "Mr. Dubois, you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he darn well won't do it again — and you have to do it right away! It doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath just to scold him." Then I added, "I guess you've never raised pups."
"Many. I'm raising a dachshund now — by your methods. Let's get back to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than you here in this class . . . and they often started their lawless careers much younger. Let us never forget that puppy. These children were often caught; police arrested batches each day. Were they scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. News organs and officials usually kept their names secret — in many places the law so required for criminals under eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage."
(I had reflected that my father must never have heard of that theory.)
"Corporal punishment in schools was forbidden by law," he had gone on. "Flogging was lawful as sentence of court only in one small province, Delaware, and there only for a few crimes and was rarely invoked; it was regarded as 'cruel and unusual punishment.' " Dubois had mused aloud, "I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment — and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism? However, that period was loaded with pre-scientific pseudo-psychological nonsense.
"As for 'unusual,' punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose." He then pointed his stump at another boy. "What would happen if a puppy were spanked every hour?"
"Uh . . . probably drive him crazy!"
"Probably. It certainly will not teach him anything. How long has it been since the principal of this school last had to switch a pupil?"
"Uh, I'm not sure. About two years. The kid that swiped — "
"Never mind. Long enough. It means that such punishment is so unusual as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. Back to these young criminals — They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning — a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished — and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation — 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.
"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal — and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder. You — "
He had singled me out again. "Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house . . . and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken — whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. Comment, please?"
"Why . . . that's the craziest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!"
"I agree. Or a child. Whose fault would it be?"
"Uh . . . why, mine, I guess."
"Again I agree. But I'm not guessing."
"Mr. Dubois," a girl blurted out, "but why? Why didn't they spank little kids when they needed it and use a good dose of the strap on any older ones who deserved it — the sort of lesson they wouldn't forget! I mean ones who did things really bad. Why not?"
"I don't know," he had answered grimly, "except that the time-tested method of instilling social virtue and respect for law in the minds of the young did not appeal to a pre-scientific pseudo-professional class who called themselves 'social workers' or sometimes 'child psychologists.' It was too simple for them, apparently, since anybody could do it, using only the patience and firmness needed in training a puppy. I have sometimes wondered if they cherished a vested interest in disorder — but that is unlikely; adults almost always act from conscious 'highest motives' no matter what their behavior."
"But — good heavens!" the girl answered. "I didn't like being spanked any more than any kid does, but when I needed it, my mama delivered. The only time I ever got a switching in school I got another one when I got home and that was years and years ago. I don't ever expect to be hauled up in front of a judge and sentenced to a flogging; you behave yourself and such things don't happen. I don't see anything wrong with our system; it's a lot better than not being able to walk outdoors for fear of your life — why, that's horrible!"
"I agree. Young lady, the tragic wrongness of what those well-meaning people did, contrasted with what they thought they were doing, goes very deep. They had no scientific theory of morals. They did have a theory of morals and they tried to live by it (I should not have sneered at their motives) but their theory was wrong — half of it fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry. The more earnest they were, the farther it led them astray. You see, they assumed that Man has a moral instinct."
"Sir? But I thought — But he does! I have."
"No, my dear, you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not — and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind. These unfortunate juvenile criminals were born with none, even as you and I, and they had no chance to acquire any; their experiences did not permit it. What is 'moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everything we do."
"But the instinct to survive," he had gone on, "can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. Young lady, what you miscalled your 'moral instinct' was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth that survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on up. A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual's instinct to survive — and nowhere else! — and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts."
"We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any level. Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward the human race — we are even developing an exact ethic for extra-human relations. But all moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation: 'Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.' Once you understand the problem facing that cat and how she solved it, you will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral ladder you are capable of climbing.
"These juvenile criminals hit a low level. Born with only the instinct for survival, the highest morality they achieved was a shaky loyalty to a peer group, a street gang. But the do-gooders attempted to 'appeal to their better natures,' to 'reach them,' to 'spark their moral sense.' Tosh! They had no 'better natures'; experience taught them that what they were doing was the way to survive. The puppy never got his spanking; therefore what he did with pleasure and success must be 'moral.'
"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand — that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.' "
"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."
Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
"The third 'right'? — the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives — but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."
Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue — indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents — people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail."
"And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights' . . . and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure."
I wondered how Colonel Dubois would have classed Dillinger. Was he a juvenile criminal who merited pity even though you had to get rid of him? Or was he an adult delinquent who deserved nothing but contempt?
I didn't know, I would never know. The one thing I was sure of was that he would never again kill any little girls.
That suited me. I went to sleep.

-Chapter 8



Seriously!?

You honestly believe he was in the wrong here. She was being a bitch. She jumped in front of his car. SHE called the police. SHE tried to give him a fine. He was being perfectly reasonable. I'm sure if you were in that situation you would have just punched her in the face before throwing her under your tire. And if you don't like spanking children, then you probably don't have any. But if you do, then they're probably spoiled little softies who hold their breath so you'll buy them a cookie.



Because like children,

Because like children, people occasionally need discipline in order to keep them from breaking laws (no matter how small they seem to the child, or offending person) for their own well being and good. While spanking is debatable, turning a blind eye to bad behavior is not.

I guess if you saw your child hitting someone, you would just ignore it, so you could be the bigger person. You are so above it, after all, and no way would you ever make yourself small. I'm sure your child would love the inattention and aloofness you display so readily.



Fighting

Yes, I've made this mistake...

Anyway it's also not the wife's job to discipline her husband by hitting him. But even so, , I don't think a guy should hit or kick a girl,woman unless they are really feeling threatened.



Not a joke?

This isn't a joke, it's a bunch of legal jargon. The punchiline is pretty week too...



Moral of the story is not to

Moral of the story is not to whine and cause trouble for everybody.



Once again...

Proof that lawyers are the scum infesting the planet. How do you "accelerate" to avoid an accident? I sense you being "well bred" has made you an arrogant fuk. I hope you never pass the bar because people like you, dare I say Sir and belittle the word, are what is wrong with the judicial system and society as a whole.



your concept of acceleration is quite lousy.

"acceleration" is calculated as velocity over time. Velocity is a vector, so it can change in exactly two ways; change of direction and change of magnitude. Even when your speed is constant (i.e. constant magnitude) when you're riding your car, swerving to avoid an accident (i.e. changing direction) is accelerating. That's how.



/facepalm And you sir, are

/facepalm

And you sir, are what is wrong with the world, as well as the roadways. Being an active and responsive driver means more than just slamming on the brakes in some cases.



Win

Win



Priceless!

This is great!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.