Man fined for criticizing govt using science, without a license

[SiliconWizard]

So the act of actually forging and possessing and showing a forged document is not a crime. You even even allowed to trick people into believing it's genuine because to be a crime they must prove that you a) "to induce some person to accept it as genuine, and" gained financial advantage from it.

Those are interesting differences between legal systems. Ours considers the *intent* itself as a possible offence (and I think that's a general idea in our whole system), even when it has not necessarily been acted upon, whereas yours considers the actual acts leading to consequences. That's a major difference. Of course acts and bad consequences most often make the sentences much heavier in court in our system, but they are not prerequisites per se to get sentenced...

[EEVblog]

Those are interesting differences between legal systems. Ours considers the *intent* itself as a possible offence (and I think that's a general idea in our whole system), even when it has not necessarily been acted upon, whereas yours considers the actual acts leading to consequences. That's a major difference.

We have ones that include "intent".
For example, lock picking tools are technically legal to posses in NSW, but it's the intent that matters, and they (the police) have to prove or at least provide reasonable grounds to assume you have intent to commit a crime with them.

Crimes Act 1900
Section 114 – Being armed with intent to commit indictable offence
Any person who: (a) is armed with any weapon, or instrument, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (b) has in his or her possession, without lawful excuse, any implement of housebreaking or safebreaking, or any implement capable of being used to enter or drive or enter and drive a conveyance, (c) has his or her face blackened or otherwise disguised, or has in his or her possession the means of blacking or otherwise disguising his or her face, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (d) enters or remains in or upon any part of a building or any land occupied or used in connection therewith with intent to commit an indictable offence in or upon the building, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
For the purposes of subsection (1) (b) “conveyance” means any cab, carriage, motor car, caravan, trailer, motor lorry, omnibus, motor or other bicycle, or any ship, or vessel, used in or intended for navigation, and “drive” shall be construed accordingly.

[splin]

Greece exists only so Spain cannot be the worst EU country.

[OT] That joke is rather like the one in a video about the English Electric Lightning I just watched in which it was said that "the only reason it has wings is to keep the nav lights apart"

[ebastler]

We have ones that include "intent".
For example, lock picking tools are technically legal to posses in NSW, but it's the intent that matters, and they (the police) have to prove or at least provide reasonable grounds to assume you have intent to commit a crime with them.

Crimes Act 1900
Section 114 – Being armed with intent to commit indictable offence
Any person who: (a) is armed with any weapon, or instrument, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (b) has in his or her possession, without lawful excuse, any implement of housebreaking or safebreaking, or any implement capable of being used to enter or drive or enter and drive a conveyance, (c) has his or her face blackened or otherwise disguised, or has in his or her possession the means of blacking or otherwise disguising his or her face, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (d) enters or remains in or upon any part of a building or any land occupied or used in connection therewith with intent to commit an indictable offence in or upon the building, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
For the purposes of subsection (1) (b) “conveyance” means any cab, carriage, motor car, caravan, trailer, motor lorry, omnibus, motor or other bicycle, or any ship, or vessel, used in or intended for navigation, and “drive” shall be construed accordingly.

Interestingly, clause (b) in the quoted section reverses the burden of proof:  It's not the police who have to show, or make plausible, your intent -- but in the case of carrying lockpicks, you have to provide a "lawful excuse".

[EEVblog]

We have ones that include "intent".
For example, lock picking tools are technically legal to posses in NSW, but it's the intent that matters, and they (the police) have to prove or at least provide reasonable grounds to assume you have intent to commit a crime with them.

Crimes Act 1900
Section 114 – Being armed with intent to commit indictable offence
Any person who: (a) is armed with any weapon, or instrument, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (b) has in his or her possession, without lawful excuse, any implement of housebreaking or safebreaking, or any implement capable of being used to enter or drive or enter and drive a conveyance, (c) has his or her face blackened or otherwise disguised, or has in his or her possession the means of blacking or otherwise disguising his or her face, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (d) enters or remains in or upon any part of a building or any land occupied or used in connection therewith with intent to commit an indictable offence in or upon the building, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
For the purposes of subsection (1) (b) “conveyance” means any cab, carriage, motor car, caravan, trailer, motor lorry, omnibus, motor or other bicycle, or any ship, or vessel, used in or intended for navigation, and “drive” shall be construed accordingly.

Interestingly, clause (b) in the quoted section reverses the burden of proof:  It's not the police who have to show, or make plausible, your intent -- but in the case of carrying lockpicks, you have to provide a "lawful excuse".

Easy, carry a lock with your lock pick set. "It's a hobby officer".
It's like the NSW knife laws, which interestingly has the specific clause about "burden of proof" being on the person.
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1988/25/part2/div2

Without limitation, it is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of this section for a person to have custody of a knife, if:
(a)  the custody is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances for any of the following:
(i)  the lawful pursuit of the person’s occupation, education or training,
(ii)  the preparation or consumption of food or drink,
(iii)  participation in a lawful entertainment, recreation or sport,
(iv)  the exhibition of knives for retail or other trade purposes,
(v)  an organised exhibition by knife collectors,
(vi)  the wearing of an official uniform,
(vii)  genuine religious purposes, or
(b)  the custody is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances during travel to or from or incidental to an activity referred to in paragraph (a), or
(c)  the custody is of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

I always fit two of those categories, and sometimes three. Simply have a Geocaching app on your phone and bingo, you are a Geocacher who needs the tool. Or carry a piece of fruit everywhere.
I of course always have the occupation excuse.

[ebastler]

I of course always have the occupation excuse.

Right -- you never know where you might stumble upon a dumpster containing a sealed package! 

[SiliconWizard]

"the preparation or consumption of food or drink," should reasonably apply to pretty much anybody as well. Just don't forget to bring a fruit, piece of meat or vegetable of some kind with you. "I was just going to peal this orange!" Done!
 

Anyway, the way I see it, this is the kind of law that is expressed in a negative manner: something is considered illegal by default UNLESS you fall into a number of specific cases ("reasonable excuse").
I think the fact they are expressed in this negative way makes the reversal of the burden of proof kinda logical in a way. I'm absolutely no lawyer though, so this is just my "logical" way of seeing it.

[coppice]

"the preparation or consumption of food or drink," should reasonably apply to pretty much anybody as well. Just don't forget to bring a fruit, piece of meat or vegetable of some kind with you. "I was just going to peal this orange!" Done!
 

Anyway, the way I see it, this is the kind of law that is expressed in a negative manner: something is considered illegal by default UNLESS you fall into a number of specific cases ("reasonable excuse").
I think the fact they are expressed in this negative way makes the reversal of the burden of proof kinda logical in a way. I'm absolutely no lawyer though, so this is just my "logical" way of seeing it.

Carry a katana. They were designed to slice through meat, and so are clearly perfect for making a nice sandwich. 

[SiliconWizard]

A katana is also nice to cut a watermelon.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

A swiss army knife is illegal too?

[Tomorokoshi]

A katana is also nice to cut a watermelon.

Sure, but usually a stick is used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suikawari

[metrologist]

Ultimate vindication.

https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-with-new-traffic-light-timing-formula/


Mats Järlström:

https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=21E65B05-A75E-4C62-0B63-C904EEF77729

[angrybird]

This is really beautiful!  Yes, there is some ridiculous bureacracy on the coasts and in the larger cities, but the constitution and its amendments are non-negotiable and it's awesome to see that not only did he win his court case, but made history with his new traffic light formula! Bravo!!!

[brucehoult]

"the formula used to time traffic lights and realized it didn’t take into account that drivers making turns need to slow down to safely navigate the intersection"

Not only that -- there are many other reasons why you might enter the intersection after the light turns yellow and still be in it when it turns red.

- you've just pulled out of a parking space or driveway and have not yet accelerated
- you're going to pull into a parking space or driveway on the other side of the intersection
- there's stopped traffic on the other side of the intersection, but space for you to stop behind it, clear of the intersection
- you're going significantly slower than the speed limit because you're on a bicycle, scooter, tractor etc
- you're simply driving significantly slower than the speed limit

[rsjsouza]

Incredible win! Not many would go to these lenghts to do what he did, especially fighting against such absolutist institutions. Good that justice was truly served.

[james_s]

Once in a great while common sense prevails. It takes someone willing to fight a matter on principal instead of only considering the cost vs immediate benefit to themselves and just capitulating.

[angrybird]

Take a look at what is happening to the red light/speeding cameras elsewhere... Some areas have seen so much vandalism that they shut them all down 

In the USA, you have the right to face your accuser.  This is the primary argument against these cameras, and I completely agree with it...  If there were a camera near my house, I would be one of the vandalizers...  Stickers over the lenses work wonders!  Though some people seem to outright smash them 

[CatalinaWOW]

I don't like red light cameras.  But at numerous intersections I have driven a red light camera was the difference between 6-12 cars "stretching" a light into my own green and one or none.  Obviously most of those 6-12 were aware they were in violation and only the threat of a ticket stopped them. 

[james_s]

Red light runners seriously annoy me. Initially I was in support of the cameras but then I saw the way they were abused in the quest for revenue and that put me off to them. I think if they're going to have a red light camera the amber light interval should be required to be at least a certain length depending on characteristics of the road, and the camera should only trip if one enters the intersection on red, someone should not be punished for getting stuck in an intersection due to traffic suddenly stopping, pedestrian jaywalking, etc.

[sassywren]

I don't like red light cameras.  But at numerous intersections I have driven a red light camera was the difference between 6-12 cars "stretching" a light into my own green and one or none.  Obviously most of those 6-12 were aware they were in violation and only the threat of a ticket stopped them.

I think this is something that should be addressed in the drivers training - most of the USA is painfully aware of how lax the rules are for obtaining a driver's license...  The driving tests should be mandatory at least upon license renewal, they don't even do real vision tests in many of the states.  This law regarding facing your accuser is not negotiable and this is why the speeding/red light cams continue to go up, go down, dissapear, constant controversy.  In the end, I believe some municipalities will choose to keep them by finding ways around the law, and I guess if people don't like this, they can move elsewhere.

I have been nabbed by the cameras in several major USA cities including san jose but none in oregon (that I am aware of!).  Not even sure how they flagged me as I am a very careful driver, but somehow the camera decided I was guilty - Probably a left turn on a yellow light like in this gentleman's fight against the state!  Since my residence/license were not from the states that issued the tickets, and the address on my license was forwarded to yet another address, nothing ever happened other than a series of threatening letters which eventually stopped.  This, in itself, is a hilarity.

[EEVblog]

Ultimate vindication.
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-with-new-traffic-light-timing-formula/

Like a BOSS! 

[DrG]

I'd bet good money on if you called yourself a policeman or military personnel of standing you'd be breaking more serious laws than that of a civil fine.

I can call myself a police officer or even a four star general. It's only once I try to take actions as such that laws come into effect. The Supreme Court recently overturned a law that penalized someone for claiming to be a veteran. You are free to claim to be active duty or retired military, regardless if it is true or not, so long as you do not use this as a ruse to collect benefits (monetary, access to facilities, charity, etc.). It is only after the speech turns to actions that the free speech protections provided by the Constitution cease.

I think that you are probably referring to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005 and you are absolutely right that the SCOTUS found it to be unconstitutional in 2012. It is an interesting story I think because it illustrates the evolution of the right idea ( prevent people from  falsely claiming to have earned the medal in an attempt to protect the valor of legitimate recipients) to conform to accepted principles (freedom of speech). 

In response, two things happened that were worthy of note. 1) A publicly accessible registry of award recipients was instituted https://valor.defense.gov/ although it is currently somewhat limited. 2) The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 was passed into law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2013. That law, which is in effect today, addressed the intent (i.e., "do not use this as a ruse to collect benefits", as you have said) without the infringement on Freedom of Speech.

If I recall from my reading (just now) one of the Justices said basically (re:2005 act) - what's next, imprisonment for lying about your age? (well, it was said with a bit more gravitas  )

I am filling in some of the details (not even mentioning the lower court decisions) because I think the process (come out with it - test it - revise it or dump it and figure out another way) is relevant to the original topic. Hopefully, the evolution will be a little quicker.

[james_s]

If the camera takes a picture when triggered and a police officer later reviews the pictures and makes the accusation, does that not enable one to face their accuser? I don't understand why the officer would have to physically see the offense with his or her own eyes, video and photographic evidence is admissible in many other circumstances. I think if each photo were reviewed by an officer that would break the loop of autonomous machine issuing tickets without accounting for nuances in the situation that a human police officer would.

[rsjsouza]

It is usually a not so popular opinion but I have no quarrel about cameras. This is mostly due to the fact that, in my hometown, traffic accidents killed and maimed a lot of people. It is a result of very weak enforcement, very low traffic (outside of the short rush hour) and very wide streets and avenues with good pavement.

The introduction of speed and traffic light cameras in the 1990s brought the accidents to fraction of what it once was - they still have the cameras to this day, despite the constant arguments and lawsuits from the general population.

If done properly, they can be a good thing.

[james_s]

But is the camera accusing anyone of the system relies on a human police officer to review the photos? The camera in that case is a passive observer.

I'm not against the concept of red light cameras however I am against the way they are frequently implemented not to improve safety but as a source of revenue. I'm some areas rear end collisions increased sharply as people slam on their brakes to avoid a trigger happy camera that is automated to the point that it's difficult and risky to fight the ticket.