I provided all the information a lawyer would need to disprove your arguments. The statutory language fits. You need to find an exculpatory California case on false imprisonment or your client loses.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ANTIFA - Rioting and Destroying America
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
I provided all the information a lawyer would need to disprove your arguments. The statutory language fits. You need to find an exculpatory California case on false imprisonment or your client loses.
No. A prima facie case hasn't been made as to detainment, etc. If the drivers can escape their car/freeway, they are not imprisoned. This should be an obvious conclusion. The DA has to FIRST MAKE A PRIMA FACIE CASE.I provided all the information a lawyer would need to disprove your arguments. The statutory language fits. You need to find an exculpatory California case on false imprisonment or your client loses.
The Defense can argue simply that a prima facie case hasn't been made.
The DA needs the case law showing that people sitting in their cars, when they can walk away, are imprisoned.
Like I said, you need to demand a refund.
Last edited:
If the drivers can escape their car/freeway, they are not imprisoned.
You need a case to establish that or it will be a case of first impression in which the DA is free to take an aggressive position.
Your post here has absolutely nothing to do with the DA's requirement to make a prima facie case. Period.You need a case to establish that or it will be a case of first impression in which the DA is free to take an aggressive position.
Your post here has absolutely nothing to do with the DA's requirement to make a prima facie case. Period.
The statute makes the case. The DA can take the position that it isn't reasonable to expect people to leave their automobiles on a crowded road. Unless there is a contrary case, which you haven't found yet.
The statue doesn't require reasonableness, it deals with safety, just like the drafters wanted. Period.The DA can take the position that it isn't reasonable to expect people to leave their automobiles on a crowded road.
Also, the word reasonable normally modifies something. 'Reasonable Person,' reasonable time,' etc. for examples. The way you're trying to use it, all by itself, makes no sense. (...Get your Refund...)
These laws have been on the books forever and are likely well settled.
Protests have also been happening forever.
This a not the case of, for example, new technology needing new case laws to be made.
Again, the onus is on the DA to show how his creative, off-label use applies via case law or other means. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The defendant doesn't need case law (as you stated earlier) to prove his innocence. Again, get a refund.
These laws have been on the books forever and are likely well settled
Then find me a case that says so.
Find you a case that says what?Then find me a case that says so.
Find you a case that says what?
That the law is settled, i.e. obstructing a vehicle on a busy road can't be misdemeanor false imprisonment.
I see you are clueless as to what 'well settled' means.That the law is settled, i.e. obstructing a vehicle on a busy road can't be misdemeanor false imprisonment.
It means 'well established,' mature, stable, etc.
False Imprisonment was defined in 1871.
You definitely need a refund from your 'so-called' law school.