If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
And if you are shitfaced drunk and get convicted you can eventually get you license to drive back, but if the cops think you are impaired and .04 and the judge or jury buys that, its federal PP status for life. Ditto for failing to report a hotel fire or receiving a deposit while working for an insolvent banking institution.
Or, leave gun on you, have one beer and go on your way
It's my understanding, that if it's a fixed route transportation system, such as by rail. Then it's a public transportation source that cannot refuse ridership
These all sound pretty "subjective" to me. Isn't that the kind of thing this Bruen brouhaha was supposedly at least partially about?
Bruen did not address the suitability issue other than to say "need" is not a criteria.
The MA misdafelony comes close. But NYC is looking at using social media posts against applicants.
Do you have a cite for this understanding? It would be most interesting.
This is a case of "bad facts make bad law". By observation, Veronneau was "under the influence". The .07 BT one hour after the stop is no saving grace. This case got messy when Veronneau was acquitted of the OUI charge, but was still considered "under the influence" while carrying. In reality, he should have gotten bagged for both. It seems that the appellate court was faced with a case where the acquittal was on questionable reasoning and the court was more interested in preserving the conviction on the FUI charge. The court states:
Here the court reasoned that a reasonable fact finder could find that Veronneau was not impaired to a degree that prevented him from safely operating a motor vehicle, something that requires a host of mental and physical challenges in an ever changing environment, but was impaired enough to prevent him from safely carrying his firearm, something that is entirely passive. The cases cited do not speak directly on this issue, but only addressing a prior allowance of inconsistent findings. This case was denied review by the SJC in 2017.
That sounds like circular logic. I can do it because they let me do it. ???
www.millercriminaldefense.com
Verroneau blew a .07 and the results of field sobriety tests are inadmissible, so on what basis would conviction have been justified?
Yes, it is.
make sure they give you the pin number when you buy that card...just saying
I'm not sure what bothers more more, someone not knowing it's unlawful to buy someone else's welfare benefits, or the lack of a moral compass that would allow someone to buy welfare benefits legal or not.
if the system was administered properly those benefits would be coveted and much more strictly regulated.
Is the person free to decline and proceed to the subway, or simply free to leave and not pass the searchpoint?
That is not true at all. The field sobriety tests are admissible, were considered as evidence and discussed in the appeal. HGN and (currently) PBT are inadmissible without expert testimony on the scientific basis, but nine step walk and turn and one legged stand are standard FSTs and are absolutely admissible.
I guess I have higher ideals, and I think those lower ideals are part of what is dragging down society.He probably does not understand the system....
Of course it doesn't help matters that basically it's just a f****** card instead of a booklet of food stamps. Blaming the symptoms of a s*** system in some ways distracts from the fact that the root/administration is the rotten part of the
thing. The fact that you have a person who has an EBT card who freely is willing to just trade the benefits away is the bigger problem than the act of trading the benefits is...... it's kind of like grousing about somebody not locking a horse up after the horse is already running around the town destroying s***....
Would I do it? No. Never. But i can easily see how somebody who pays a shitload of taxes would probably rationalize petty theft from government to get a tiny amount of their tax dollars back in their favor, and not feel bad about it. Especially considering the fact that the person that's really committing the welfare fraud (the people selling their benefits) in my opinion is the person that should bear the brunt of any criminal punishment. These people also wash their EBT benefits by doing s*** like selling laundry detergent or baby formula.... you think the people buying that s*** are going to be giving the seller a third degree on how they bought it originally? Good luck with that. Sometimes that s*** even gets sold to a third party or a middle man before the actual buyer ends up buying it. It may be a fruit of an illegal process but the buyer has no way of knowing that other than by making an educated guess.....
That sounds like circular logic. I can do it because they let me do it. ???
Pat frisk and exit orders recent decisions in MA. (Because this thread is about MA/Boston. I know NES isn't just commie Ma**h***)
Stop and Frisk law in Massachusetts - Attorney Steven J. Topazio
The law on patfrisks has been clarified in the case of Commonwealth v. Torres-Pagan, 484 Mass. 34, (2019). A stop and frisk occurs when a police officer temporarily detains a pedestrian and pats down their outer clothing when there are specific and articulable facts leading a reasonable police...www.topaziolaw.com
The Basics of ‘Stop and Frisk’ Law in Massachusetts. - Miller Criminal Defense
In Massachusetts, a person may lawfully be stopped by police and frisked of the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime and the officer has a reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. It is not uncommon...
https://www.mass.gov/doc/pat-frisk/download
View attachment 656187
I feel like this is going to be the game the cities who treat firearms rights like diapers are going to play in the wake of the "no more restrictions" game. Sure, charges will be dropped, but h ow many people are going to be able to financially afford the attorney to help get it dropped? How many will be scared from exercising their right as a result of knowing that doing nothing wrong will get them a charge? Its disgusting backhanded politics, using the police as a political enforcement unit and not as police.
We took the Salem ferry to Boston last Saturday to enjoy the St. Anthony celebration in the North End. When we walked into the building to purchase our tickets, there was a sign on the door stating that anyone entering the building or boarding the ferry is subject to search. Did not see any searches being conducted, though, in either Salem or Boston. But the warning sign was prominently posted.
