Here is an interesting article about a woman who received a ticket in the mail after the village read her Facebook entry. You see - this is when they need a literalist, like me, working for them. I'd have told them the meaning of the sentence right away.
Of course, I can see how the sentence needs rewriting for clarity:
quote:
“I was feeling bad that I haven’t bought a pass and been bringing Ginger there but I’m pretty glad I haven’t,” Adamski wrote. “So not going to worry about it until later. I hope all the doggies get better soon.”
A) She was feeling bad that she has been bringing Ginger there without a pass - but now, that there are sick dogs, she is glad she hasn't bought the pass and therefore she won't worry about getting one until later - when the dogs are better.
On the other hand:
B) She was feeling bad that she hasn't bought a pass and therefore hasn't been bringing Ginger to the park - however, now she is glad she didn't get the pass because of the sick dogs. She won't worry about getting a pass until later.
The real question is, how can you cite a person for a violation without 1. Witnessing the offense 2. Having a date and time the offense occurred. 3. Having the necessary evidence (the malefactor's poop).
Yes, but it's done all the time, at least in the Chicago area.
My car was once towed at 3:45 pm, when the sign said (and the policeman I talked to verified it) that cars would be towed between 4:00 - 6:00 pm. They didn't make me pay the ticket, but I still had to pay the $120 towing charge. [So glad I got to vent on this! ]
Originally posted by Proofreader: The real question is, how can you cite a person for a violation without 1. Witnessing the offense 2. Having a date and time the offense occurred. 3. Having the necessary evidence (the malefactor's poop).
Let's see what you are seeing is... a crime with no witnesses isn't a crime?
In this case a mistaken reading was taken as a confession. Without commenting on the specifics of whether something posted on social media can be considered a confession, most juries would convict a criminal on a confession alone, as long as they were convinced that it was a real confession.
There doesn't need to be a witness. This would surely apply in civil as well as criminal matters.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
There has to be evidence that a crime was committed. A confession is merely the starting point. People confess often to crimes which never occurred. If I say I murdered my wife, before charging me the police would have to make certain she is indeed dead and that she died at my hands and not accidentally or naturally.
Any police monitoring this post --- my wife is alive and well and that was not a confession. Although you might want to check after our next "discussion."
Certainly, at least in the U.S., confessions have been proven to be wrong many times. On the other hand, I also agree with Bob that you don't always have to have a witness. There are other pieces of evidence, such as fingerprints, blood types, hair, DNA, etc. Of course with parking violations, there won't be much else. That's what the courts bank on, I suppose.
I also agree with Bob that you don't always have to have a witness.
But they DO need evidence that a crime occurred in a specific place at a specific time. To cite someone based on a vague statement without a chronological context is ridiculous. The person charged must have a way of proving they were not at the place at the time, if that is the case. It can't be "you did X at some location on some date."
Here's a blog post about literalism; the difference between the way Americans and the British take the authority of the written word. In particular it mentions the tendency for the US Supreme Court to use dictionary definitions in its judgments.
]
