PSA: Run! Hide! Fight! Surviving an Active Shooter Event.

[dps]

Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be.  That's all it is.


"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"

"I together with Officer X and Officer Y seized the suspect baggy of alleged marijuana."

Sadly its us lawyers that make them talk that way.

"walked up to the car" - which car is that?  What is a car anyways?  I frequently have an officer describe pulling over a, say, F-150.  I then have to ask "Is a Ford F-150 a motor vehicle"?

What other F-150s are out there?

You know, if you have jurors that aren't into automobiles at all, you might have to ask the officer to clarify what an F-150 is.  But if you've got jurors who don't know what a car is, you might as well give up.

[Razgovory]

What other F-150s are out there?

Maybe it's so people won't confuse it with a F-15 O variant.

[Barrister]

Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be.  That's all it is.


"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"

"I together with Officer X and Officer Y seized the suspect baggy of alleged marijuana."

Sadly its us lawyers that make them talk that way.

"walked up to the car" - which car is that?  What is a car anyways?  I frequently have an officer describe pulling over a, say, F-150.  I then have to ask "Is a Ford F-150 a motor vehicle"?

What other F-150s are out there?

You know, if you have jurors that aren't into automobiles at all, you might have to ask the officer to clarify what an F-150 is.  But if you've got jurors who don't know what a car is, you might as well give up.

The thing is...

the statute is worded that it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while drunk.  It doesn't use the word car.  And there are just enough pinhead judges who will say "well he talked about a "car" - how do I know it was a motor vehicle?  Maybe it was a horse-drawn carriage?" that it's safest to ask "and was that a motor vehicle?".

[dps]

The thing is...

the statute is worded that it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while drunk.  It doesn't use the word car.  And there are just enough pinhead judges who will say "well he talked about a "car" - how do I know it was a motor vehicle?  Maybe it was a horse-drawn carriage?" that it's safest to ask "and was that a motor vehicle?".

Just out of curiosity, are you talking about members of the jury, or about judges?

[Barrister]

The thing is...

the statute is worded that it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while drunk.  It doesn't use the word car.  And there are just enough pinhead judges who will say "well he talked about a "car" - how do I know it was a motor vehicle?  Maybe it was a horse-drawn carriage?" that it's safest to ask "and was that a motor vehicle?".

Just out of curiosity, are you talking about members of the jury, or about judges?

Judges.

There is a minority of judges who really view law as just some enormous game.  It isn't about the search for truth", but rather whether or not the Crown has complied with a whole series of technicalities.

I once had a case thrown out because my officer used an "Approved Screening Device" and called it an "AlcoSensor", but the judge felt that because the list of Approved Screening Devices in the Code didn't have an "AlcoSensor", but only an "AlcoSensor IV DWF" listed, I hadn't proven that the cop used the right kind of device.

I had to go to the Court of Appeal, which said you don't need to name the precise make and model, just saying it is an "Approved Screening Device" is enough.  But heaven help you if your cop calls it an "Approved Device" or a "Screening Device".

Juries are much less likely to buy into this kind of ultra-technical argument.

[crazy canuck]

But heaven help you if your cop calls it an "Approved Device" or a "Screening Device".

Well yeah.

If is for the finder of fact to decide if the device used is an approved device under the act.  The officer is to give evidence as to what device he used and then the judge decides whether that device is an approved device.

Dont get lazy counsel!

[dps]

The thing is...

the statute is worded that it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while drunk.  It doesn't use the word car.  And there are just enough pinhead judges who will say "well he talked about a "car" - how do I know it was a motor vehicle?  Maybe it was a horse-drawn carriage?" that it's safest to ask "and was that a motor vehicle?".

Just out of curiosity, are you talking about members of the jury, or about judges?

Judges.

There is a minority of judges who really view law as just some enormous game.  It isn't about the search for truth", but rather whether or not the Crown has complied with a whole series of technicalities.

I once had a case thrown out because my officer used an "Approved Screening Device" and called it an "AlcoSensor", but the judge felt that because the list of Approved Screening Devices in the Code didn't have an "AlcoSensor", but only an "AlcoSensor IV DWF" listed, I hadn't proven that the cop used the right kind of device.

I had to go to the Court of Appeal, which said you don't need to name the precise make and model, just saying it is an "Approved Screening Device" is enough.  But heaven help you if your cop calls it an "Approved Device" or a "Screening Device".

Juries are much less likely to buy into this kind of ultra-technical argument.

That's kind of what I thought, which was why I asked the question.  It didn't sound like run-of-the-mill stupidity, but the kind of stupidity you only get after several years of law school.

Stuff like this is why people talk about "the death of common sense" in the modern legal system.

[Martinus]

We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111

If everyone carried a gun, noone would get shot!!!11111

[dps]

We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111

If everyone carried a gun, noone would get shot!!!11111

If I had a gun and no one else did, I could pick who gets shot.

[Martinus]

We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111

If everyone carried a gun, noone would get shot!!!11111

If I had a gun and no one else did, I could pick who gets shot.

Do you get turned on by playing the God? 

[dps]

We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111

If everyone carried a gun, noone would get shot!!!11111

If I had a gun and no one else did, I could pick who gets shot.

Do you get turned on by playing the God? 

Not really, but if only one person can have a gun, I trust me with it more than anybody else I know.