We don’t owe you the right to live with a deadly disease. You cannot mandate others to perform actions just so you can live, if you wouldn’t live naturally.
In Texas, I can get hammered, drive a car drunk without a license behind a fence 10 feet next to the highway (property-side). And there's not a damn thing you can legally do about it, despite any fears I may plow through that fence. The suggested (stricken) OSHA mandates were basically forcing non-consensual penetration, or lose your job.
---------
>That's not totally true. This Texas-based DWI defense attorney says:
You conveniently skipped the top of the page where it explicitly says DWI in Texas must occur in public (a fenced in private property is almost never considered public). Sure a cop can probably find a reason to arrest you no matter what you're doing, if they want to.
>Obviously you should be able to be unvaccinated only on private property then...
Most businesses are on private property. Given that the fourth amendment protects us from handing over documents except on subpeona/court order or probable cause of crime (a few states do compel revealing your identity, although you don't have to reveal your age if the crime is age-related such as alcohol violation), and you can't tell by looking at someone if they're vaccinated, it would essentially be meaningless to make it a crime to be unvaccinated while walking to work for instance. Controlling vaccination is far easier on private property, where you have no freedom to travel and can thus be stopped and checked before entering.
> The police can arrest you if they have probable cause to do so for driving under the influence. Even if you are operating your motor vehicle on what you believe is your own property, the police still may have probable cause to believe your conduct is a threat to yourself or others. Therefore, you should not assume that you are completely safe from arrest or conviction if you are driving drunk on your own property. - http://jackpettit.com/blog/dwis-and-drunk-driving-on-private...
- Infants/Toddlers (mask): linguistic development health risk
- Adults (vaccine): risk of anaphylaxis, TTS, GBS, Myocarditis, Pericarditis
Also the driving thing was somebody else, I just responded to it. If you didn't like it, it would have made more sense to have told them it was a bad example instead of me. It wasn't my example.
Texas Penal Code 6.03(c): "A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."
And what does the now-void sodomy law have to do with anything?
You're also mixing up indictment with conviction.
At any rate, you don't have to have a fact pattern that precisely matches a previously-recorded case to think "gee, maybe this is a bad idea and puts me at risk of violating some law." Most cases involve fact patterns that are at least somewhat different from previous case law. A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases.
I know what the difference is between indictment and conviction, stop trying to act like this holier than thou. The 'fact pattern' of drunk driving on private property isn't a rare pattern, it shouldn't be difficult to dig up a conviction under that statute if it has been succesful.
>Reckless endangerment does not require you actually hit anyone. Where did you get that from?
No shit. I got it from my example, where the driver didn't hit anyone. That's what we were both talking about, a drunk driver on their own private property behind a fence. When did I ever say they hit someone? In my example they didn't, which is why I asked for a case where they didn't.
The sodomy law is an example of how overzealous prosecutors can prosecute "a ham sandwich" on whatever they want but it means jack in terms of whether they can actually convict someone, even if the exact letter of the law suggests they can.
>A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases.
Sadly many prosecutors care more about convictions (or just dragging someone through the system, conviction or not) than any of those. And some care more about convictions than even justice, to the point they will imprison people for victimless crimes. A bad prosecutor is one of the most dangerous and despised members of society.
As for the sodomy law, before it was ruled unconstitutional (and therefore void), it was enforceable and people were convicted of it. See, e.g., https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/texas.htm
The fact that it has been voided since is something every prosecutor knows, and so they won’t even try to indict anyone for it. Getting the law off the books is a formality at this point.
Except I never said that no one had ever been convicted. I'm saying even though the law still is on paper, it doesn't mean someone can be successfully convicted of performing a 'fact pattern' that looks like it might violate the letter of the law. For someone formally trained in law you have a shockingly poor attention to detail or even accurately recalling facts.
> or you risk being removed from HN.
Is this some kind of threat? You have a power play fetish too eh? What would I _ever_ do without non-practicing lawyers arguing with me about the risk of me going to jail for some Texas penal code offense they can't even find a conviction for under one of the most common socially frowned upon 'fact patterns' known to man (Texan drunk at the wheel on his fenced-in property). But hey man, however you keep your razor sharp I guess.
--------------------
Other snips from Otterley's attacks on my character:
'Worse, you are a hypocrite: You gladly take full advantage of the protections the law affords you, while expressing disdain for the protections and fairness-guiding that the law affords others.'
'I think we've reached the end of this conversation with a clear understanding of the type of person you are. This is a garden-variety description of egotistical selfishness'
'Good for you. I bet you have a Black friend, too.'
Mr. Otterley: YOU are the hypocrite.
---------------------
Oh and another one for my friend Otterley from our old conversation, in case we don't meet each other under this username again:
'But I really thank you for the laughs. Maybe the next time I spark up a blunt, I'll stop and think to myself "lawless egotistical selfishness" and think back about dear Otterley'
My understanding is masks mandates were only banned in places like public schools, where the owner is the public thus the individual public student has the decision to wear a mask or not. I would certainly disagree with this sort of control on private school, although I might add it could be a public health risk to mandate masks in school as it could harm the linguistic health of some young children developing language skills.
Employers were banned from vaccine mandates (even on their private property).
Court rulings were that these were abuse of the state government on smaller local governments and private entities.
Is that really so different? If you need to drive for your job and try to do so without a licence you'll lose your job too. Conversely, if you're in your own home then nobody is going to make you wear a mask (well certainly not the government anyway).