Lowering the Bar

There are other stable conditions: law is not the only possible system of justice. Is it in the best interests for everyone if the law steps in every time one person punches another? Law is helpful when things can't be resolved at an interpersonal level: there are situations where a single punch should be prosecuted, so we can't just make punching legal; but equally, if too many things are illegal, selective policing becomes possible, and that's an abuse we really don't want. Institutions like the criminal justice system are tools. Some can wield the institutions skilfully (e.g. https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/07/judge_tells_con.html, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-38021839/speeding-drivers-questioned-… but often, it's a blunt instrument.

We're getting pretty far off topic, but I love this article: https://loweringthebar.net/2017/02/octopoid-embrace.html

According to the California Highway Patrol, they cannot use the carpool: http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html I therefore expected the same reasoning to apply here. But the article doesn't say that the judge followed that line of reasoning. Which surprised me.

> Everything about a "lawyer dog" is just bad journalism. No. Not at all. From [0]: > On Friday, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the trial court’s ruling in State v. Demesme refusing to exclude incriminating statements that Desmesme allegedly made to a detective. The vote was 6-1 but there was no majority opinion—the court just denied review and noted one justice had voted to grant it. But Justice Crichton, one of the six concurring justices, did write a very brief opinion, saying he wanted to “spotlight the very important constitutional issue” presented. The conclusion above—including “reference to a ‘lawyer dog'”—is taken almost word-for-word from that opinion. The conclusion mentioned in the quote above is in the article linked at [0]. The article is well worth reading. > Since that wasn't an unambiguous statement saying he wanted a lawyer... When you look at the entire sentence, it is clear that it really, really unambiguous is to anyone who isn't interested in jailing someone who talks funny: > [I]f y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer, [dawg] cause this is not what’s up. "If you think I did it, just give me a lawyer." The desire for a lawyer is clear as day to anyone who's not using motivated reasoning to fabricate excuses to "justify" trampling over the rights of regular folks. [0] <https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/11/lawyer-dog.html>

> There are good ROI, efficiency, and philosophical reasons to want to abolish TSA, but it seems naive to say there is zero value and their mere existence has not deterred anyone. Are you familiar with the TSA's measured efficiency? It's not naive at all to say that, below a certain detection threshold, the deterrence value is zero. Compare https://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/06/tsa-successfully-passes-three-s… . You'll notice that what I actually said was "[the TSA doesn't] do anything", which is accurate in a context of accident prevention. I didn't call them imperfect. I called them useless directly. It isn't the case that they do some good work and some bad work. They don't do anything that is useful in any degree.

You have to keep a close leash on your contractors: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2019/10/fourth-level-subcontractor-ruin… EDIT: I am _very_ sad that link rendering truncated "murder plot" from that

But what about bees? https://www.loweringthebar.net/2022/06/court-says-bees-are-fish.html

> that "law" is some kind of magic... Law is some kind of magic, though. Consider the case where I want to cast the "Lawyer" protection spell. If I chant "I am invoking my right to remain silent. I want to contact my attorney" then the police must stop questioning me and provide me one [1]. The spell worked. If I chant "This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up" then my spell is not strong enough and the police can interrogate me as they see fit [2]. And then there's the time where a wizard had to interpret a comma [3]. [1] https://www.nedbarnett.com/do-i-have-a-right-to-an-attorney-during-pol… [2] https://uproxx.com/culture/louisiana-supreme-court-suspect-lawyer-dog/ [3] https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/03/the-oxford-comma-use-it.html

Reminds me of this case: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html Most of us, “of a certain age,” can remember Christoff’s smiling face, on the Taster’s Choice labels, for years.

See also: Reasonable Consumer Would Know “Crunchberries” Are Not Real, Judge Rules[0] Yet Another Lawsuit About the Lack of Fruit in “Froot Loops”[1] “Hint of Lime” Case: It’s Not Crunch Berries, But It’s Close[2] [0]: https://loweringthebar.net/2009/06/reasonable-consumer-would-know-crun… [1]: https://loweringthebar.net/2010/04/yet-another-lawsuit-claims-no-fruit… [2]: https://loweringthebar.net/2021/06/hint-of-lime-case-its-not-crunch-be…

In the UK, during the purchase of our house we had to take a "chancel liability insurance", because our freehold once belonced to a rectory, so to protect ourselves from repair liability towards a chapel that has been here for centuries, we had to pay a one-off insurance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability Leftover laws are weird things. EDIT: PS: sadly, the legendary, obligatory archery practice - http://www.lordsandladies.org/the-butts.htm SFW ; "butt" was the name of an archery range - was removed from the law in England: https://loweringthebar.net/2010/06/do-englishmen-still-have-to-show-up…

That's interesting, I thought the smell was a result of the ingredients - which would make it non-distinctive and unsuitable for a trademark (as others would be excluded from making the product so the trademark would operate as a perpetual patent). Maybe the smell is a trademark only for other goods (I don't know what Class Playdoh falls in, toys?), eg Playdoh scented merch? On searching I found an informed, brief treatment here https://loweringthebar.net/2018/05/play-doh-smell-trademarked.html.

Agreements like that happen all the time. For example a sandwich place renting area in a food court under the condition that they won't lease a nearby store to another sandwich place. It seems unlikely to me that they are all illegal... [0] https://loweringthebar.net/2006/11/judge_rules_bur.html

They’re not even a law enforcement agency despite the very cop-like uniforms. They’re not legally “peace officers”, can’t make arrests, execute warrants, handle firearms, etc. I’ve seen discussions where actual police officers are a bit upset the TSA is watering down their uniform style, down to including police-like badges. Here’s the evolution of TSA uniforms over time. You the transition to being faux-cops: https://i0.wp.com/loweringthebar.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/6a00d8… There was even proposed legislation to stop calling them “officers” but this didn’t happen. More details here: https://loweringthebar.net/2012/01/junior-tsa-officer-badge-is-creepy-…

The coding system for insurance billing is insanely complex (and getting more so). For example, there are at least nine turtle related injury codes: https://loweringthebar.net/2011/09/injury-code-w5922xa-struck-by-turtl…

and got an A+ https://loweringthebar.net/2017/03/guy-who-got-a-c-on-amendment.html "In light of the student's heroic efforts to prove the professor and T.A. wrong in their assessment of his term paper, Mr Watson deserves A+"

On a related note, you might find this story about a frozen guru who is still "meditating" after several years of attempting to withstand the cold... http://loweringthebar.net/2016/09/frozen-guru-update-iii.html

I think he was referring to the legal clusterfuck that happens when someone who is legally dead isn't actually dead. http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/10/no-youre-still-deceased.html http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/08/feds-say-legally-dead-is-slightl…

Well, the first thing I could think of was this gem: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/01/can-you-carpool-with-a-corporati… Not the most perfect example, but it goes to show what happens when someone unfamiliar with the law makes "logical" (to them) assumptions about loopholes that exist. That blog is a treasure trove of gems like the above.

As http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/02/mississippi-13th-amendment.html explains, slavery was already banned officially -- the amendment was ratified in 1865 even though Mississippi didn't vote for it. There's no legal significance to finally getting around to informing the national archivist.

Interesting interview with the lawyer in question: http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-rambling-beac… And more analysis here: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/the-guy-continues-to-mess-with-t…

Man Burned at Burning Man Assumed Risk of Being Burned by Burning Man, Says Court http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/07/court-man-burned-at-burning-man-…

Oregon ended up having State Senators flee across State lines. Even one going so far as to warn law enforcement to send unmarried men without families to try to forcibly collect them. https://kval.com/news/local/oregon-senator-on-governor-sending-police-… When there is as much on the line as there is in America's legislative system, you will be surprised the shenanigans that ensue. The business of the Congress at one point had to ban the practice of dueling. Not necessarily because it wasn't seen as a way to settle a dispute, but that it happened so often. Kentucky I think is the state that specifically disqualifies legislators based on participation in duels. https://www.sos.ky.gov/admin/land/resources/articles/Documents/CodeDue… Robert's Rules of Order are often looked upon those with a darker sense of humor in the same light as the Third-man out rule in hockey. Ruins all the good fights. Though Asia has been known for some doozies. I recall the use of either a chainsaw or fire axe at one point. Ah! Taiwan was it. http://loweringthebar.net/2017/07/brawling-again-in-taiwan.html South Koreans seem to prefer the legislative Sledgehammer. https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-korea-fight28-2009jan28-story.html

It's not completely unreasonable. Here's a quote from Warren v. District Of Columbia > A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. > At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. Australia [0] and England [1] are roughly similar (the only countries I googled; I don't have time to google more but I'd guess almost all countries are legally or practically the same). In general in the US the courts are reluctant to second-guess police officers for decisions they might…

> Waiving your rights is about removing future options. Since you're agreeing not to do something. Every contract entails waiving your rights and removing future options. And tons of contracts include, as consideration, the agreement not to do something. Leases, for example. If you lease an apartment, you usually have an implied legal right to sublet; correspondingly, most landlords have a clause in the lease requiring you to waive that right, right next to the clauses requiring you not to get a pit bull or smoke cigarettes indoors or have somebody else living with you unbeknownst to the landlord. Another example is exclusivity agreements: a shopping mall might sign a contract with Panera giving that Panera an exclusive right to sell sandwiches at that mall, which means the mall is agreeing not to lease a different retail space to Subway or Quiznos. What if they lease it to Qdoba and Panera thinks a burrito is a sandwich? That was a real lawsuit, which Panera lost, not on the grounds that it's impossible to incur a negative obligation by contract, but on the grounds that a burrito is not a sandwich: https://loweringthebar.net/2006/11/judge_rules_bur.html There are legal rights that are protected to the extent that you cannot waive them and that any contract that entails such a waiver is an illegal and unenforceable contract. It's just that these rights tend to be explicitly stated as such in law, and the right to go to a court of law is not currently one of them. Maybe…

The full PDF link of complaint is linked from here: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/carreon-v-the-oatmeal.html Carreon did something quite interesting: Carreon sues National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society in order to give them all of the money collected in their name, preventing IndieGoGo to take 9% of the collected money and Inman to get any cent himself and to have a chance to decide how much to pay to which charity (claiming that Inman promised to pay only USD 20,000 to both). And of course to prevent him photographing with the collected money. :) Ground: the collection of the money over IndieGoGo wasn't done according to the law that regulates collection of charities. Moreover, Carreon claims that he himself paid to the campaign(!) and wants to protect the charities and all contributors who assume that charities get everything that was paid. Cool. It doesn't look like he didn't think about the suit.