Get out of the Left Lane! Nice stickers...
01-23-2009, 08:53 AM
#26
AudiWorld Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What "Accessory Clause"? CA Penal Code Section 32 does not say that.
WTF?
"But that line of reasoning is absolutely devoid of merit from a legal standpoint. And I am a student of law; currently in a Masters in Criminolgy with an emphasis in Constitutional Law."
I am a lawyer and am also a former prosecutor, so don't try and lawyer me, especially since you are not actually a lawyer.
Your argument fails from a legal standpoint as well as a common sense standpoint. I will avoid your car when in the Sacramento area when I see you in the left lane.
"But that line of reasoning is absolutely devoid of merit from a legal standpoint. And I am a student of law; currently in a Masters in Criminolgy with an emphasis in Constitutional Law."
I am a lawyer and am also a former prosecutor, so don't try and lawyer me, especially since you are not actually a lawyer.
Your argument fails from a legal standpoint as well as a common sense standpoint. I will avoid your car when in the Sacramento area when I see you in the left lane.
01-23-2009, 10:29 AM
#28
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I have to join the disagree chorus.
If there's no space to move over, meaning the traffic to the right is also slow, then yeah, I agree you shouldn't try to slow down suddenly and squeeze in just to let some guy pass you. But I do think you should try to move over as soon as traffic clears, notwithstanding you doing 65, 165, or anything inbetween.
01-23-2009, 11:48 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok fine, we can get technical here if you want to...
How about let's start with "Accessory after the fact", which falls under, for starters, RCW 9A.28.040 and Chapter 38.38 RCW---also known as the Regulation Code of Washington, back up in Washington State where I am originally from. Those are but 2---there are at least 6 other instances in Washington alone where the statute resides, or a 'reasonable faximile thereof'. Most "Accessory after the fact" statutes fall more by Stare Decisis than by actual penal code or codified statute, and you know it.
Or how about your own California Penal Code, Section 31, which states:
"All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, lunatics or idiots, to commit any crime, or who,
by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by
threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed."
Let's also not forget that there is Statutory Law, there is Case Law, and there is Common Law--and 'never the twain shall meet', as the old saying goes, and all will stand in a court of law.
And ultimately, almost all of them will, in some order or fashion, fall back upon various subsections of Title 18 of the US Code, usually subsections 3 and 4---a.k.a 18 U.S.C. ยง 3 & 4--which I would hope you are familiar with. At last count, Professor Frank Schmalleger (one of America's foremost criminology minds) assesed no less than 48 states that had current accessory laws in place---some fall under the guise of 'criminal facilitation', some by merit of 'criminal conspiracy', and others.
Granted, most of these will only be applied to offenses that are B felonies or higher----but jurisprudence dictates that they applied when lawfully applicable and jurisdictionally relevant--I understand that. And your own CPC states it can be applied to a misdemeanor, which we both know reckless, imprudent, careless or negligent driving ALL can be charged as such. We have both seen it.
They are NOT only applied to Level 1 offenses, my man. Not by a longshot.
I myself was involved in a multi-car accident about 4 years ago in Washington wherein 2 people near me where racing on a 2-lane highway, and their 'buddy' who let them by to race was actually prosecuted for criminal facilitation (aka accessory---being 'complicit') when he got out of the way to let his 'buddy' race a guy in a Mustang, the out-of-control race which about 10 seconds later resulted in an awful accident that caused a multi-car pileup and numerous injuries; my Vdub I was driving was destroyed as a result.
So yes, it most certainly can and has happened. I would be nothing short of stunned to find that California has never applied such a charge to a driving incident. Problem is down here, prosecutors have way bigger fish to fry (what with all the gangbangers and thugs and drug traffickers) than deal with idiots endangering others on the freeway; THAT's why perhaps you have never pursued this issue--if you have not, that is. But to say or imply that the statute (or applied scenario) does not exist is surely incorrect.
Or how about your own California Penal Code, Section 31, which states:
"All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, lunatics or idiots, to commit any crime, or who,
by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by
threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed."
Let's also not forget that there is Statutory Law, there is Case Law, and there is Common Law--and 'never the twain shall meet', as the old saying goes, and all will stand in a court of law.
And ultimately, almost all of them will, in some order or fashion, fall back upon various subsections of Title 18 of the US Code, usually subsections 3 and 4---a.k.a 18 U.S.C. ยง 3 & 4--which I would hope you are familiar with. At last count, Professor Frank Schmalleger (one of America's foremost criminology minds) assesed no less than 48 states that had current accessory laws in place---some fall under the guise of 'criminal facilitation', some by merit of 'criminal conspiracy', and others.
Granted, most of these will only be applied to offenses that are B felonies or higher----but jurisprudence dictates that they applied when lawfully applicable and jurisdictionally relevant--I understand that. And your own CPC states it can be applied to a misdemeanor, which we both know reckless, imprudent, careless or negligent driving ALL can be charged as such. We have both seen it.
They are NOT only applied to Level 1 offenses, my man. Not by a longshot.
I myself was involved in a multi-car accident about 4 years ago in Washington wherein 2 people near me where racing on a 2-lane highway, and their 'buddy' who let them by to race was actually prosecuted for criminal facilitation (aka accessory---being 'complicit') when he got out of the way to let his 'buddy' race a guy in a Mustang, the out-of-control race which about 10 seconds later resulted in an awful accident that caused a multi-car pileup and numerous injuries; my Vdub I was driving was destroyed as a result.
So yes, it most certainly can and has happened. I would be nothing short of stunned to find that California has never applied such a charge to a driving incident. Problem is down here, prosecutors have way bigger fish to fry (what with all the gangbangers and thugs and drug traffickers) than deal with idiots endangering others on the freeway; THAT's why perhaps you have never pursued this issue--if you have not, that is. But to say or imply that the statute (or applied scenario) does not exist is surely incorrect.