Can someone explain this expired ID thing?

The Goon said:
I said they probably wouldn't:

The Goon said:
Yet, If the merchant in a "reasonable person" then they would probably not risk wasting their time going to court over tip money.
Click to expand...

Lets say I go into a bar and all the staff knows me. I have been going there for like 2 years or w/e and never get carded anymore. They all know I am of age do you think they should get fined? Like, I can show a my credit card bill from drinking at that place while my id was not expired. By not carding me they are taking on liability but they know that I am of age to drink.
Click to expand...
What I think should happen has no relevance in the face of the law.

What's so hard to understand about this?
 
If you've got any business being in the bar you'll drop more than the renewal fee in the first couple hours. Why all the drama over bureaucratic minutia?
 
If that is true then why is it that two people get arrested for the same thing yet one gets the charges dropped because they can afford a good lawyer and the other goes to jail because they cant?
 
Because in one case it could be shown "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person committed a crime, and in the other case it couldn't.
 
Problem here is that the law is generally precise and black/white.
Click to expand...

Nope... the law is never precise and black and white. If it were, we wouldn't need lawyers and judges...and laws wouldn't have to be updated from time to time.
 
The fact that laws are changed and created by us doesn't change the fact that laws are black and white. You're not going to be found anything other than guilty or innocent of a crime you are accused of. There's nothing in between. Punishment may differ but you're still either guilty or innocent. What you do is either legal or illegal.
 
You're not going to be found anything other than guilty or innocent of a crime you are accused of. There's nothing in between. Punishment may differ but you're still either guilty or innocent. What you do is either legal or illegal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the verdicts are based upon the interpretation of the law. Not on the law itself. Why do you think people still go to court? If laws were so black and white and clear, all you'd need would be the police: we caught this guy doing this, the law says that, bam guilty or innocent, prison or not.

For example the law doesn't allow you to kill people, yet lots of people kill other people and never go to jail.
 
Blakut said:
For example the law doesn't allow you to kill people, yet lots of people kill other people and never go to jail.
Click to expand...

And that's probably not due to them not being caught or there being insufficient evidence to convict them. It's probably due to an interpretation of the law that murder is illegal.
 
And that's probably not due to them not being caught or there being insufficient evidence to convict them. It's probably due to an interpretation of the law that murder is illegal.
Click to expand...

Now, you see, interpretation.

Because if you kill someone to defend yourself, it is legal. But where does self defence start and ends? The law cannot know every possible situation, so it is left for a jury to decide if something was legal or not, the law cannot specify everything, and definitely not in black and white.
 
Yes yes, that's all fine and dandy. But this is a law on identification we're not talking about, not a complicated criminal problem.
 
Yeah, there it is pretty clear: it is either valid or invalid.

I think the point would be to force you to change your ID once in a while, cause you may grow old or something. Instead of letting people choose when they think their face has chenged enough, they just found a reasonable time interval (probably statistically determined) after which you have to change your ID.
 
Blakut said:
Yeah, there it is pretty clear: it is either valid or invalid.

I think the point would be to force you to change your ID once in a while, cause you may grow old or something. Instead of letting people choose when they think their face has chenged enough, they just found a reasonable time interval (probably statistically determined) after which you have to change your ID.
Click to expand...
That, and it means that people can only use stolen/lost IDs for a limited amount of time, limiting the damage.
 
Sander said:
That, and it means that people can only use stolen/lost IDs for a limited amount of time, limiting the damage.
Click to expand...

Limiting the damage until the ID expires can be up to 5 years that gives the wrongful holder of the ID plenty of time to have fun with it.
 
The Goon said:
Sander said:
That, and it means that people can only use stolen/lost IDs for a limited amount of time, limiting the damage.
Click to expand...

Limiting the damage until the ID expires can be up to 5 years that gives the wrongful holder of the ID plenty of time to have fun with it.
Click to expand...
It's better than giving him 50 years to play with it, and the simple average is 2,5 years not 5.
 
Lets imagine we can pass for each for a second then give me a day to play with your ID and you're going to have a warrant on your name. The simple average of 2.5 years should not make anyone feel safer.
 
Since the US have over 50 states, as much driver licence cards, and no national ID-card, it's probably the only way the government can keep track of the movement of the american population.
For the renewal in some states and if the adress is still the same, you can pay your fee and renew it on the internet.

As for the fun with a fake ID card, after 5 years the guy is probably old enought to buy beers with his own ID! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top