Lane Etiquette - Some quick lessons on traffic

For all of us who have been stuck behind a car going under the speed limit in the LEFT LANE that refuses to get over... Here is the law that says to that driver, Loud and Clear:   GET  THE   ##%!   OVER!!

"Look kids a deer..."

Utah Traffic Code 41-6a-704 prohibits three things:

1. Cars Cannot Camp in the left lane.

The law states that a vehicle in the left lane "may not impede the free flow of traffic." So if you are going slower than the flow of traffic, you best NOT be traveling in the left lane; otherwise, it is a chargeable violation.

2. Cars Must get over if someone needs to pass.

DON'T BE A GANDALF...

Next, the law says that when a car comes upon another car, traveling in the same lane, with a 2 second gap or less between the cars, the car in front MUST move over to the Right Lane to let the car in back pass. NO EXCUSES! The car in front has to move over because it is being "overtaken."

3. Drivers Must Be Polite when letting others pass.

Not only does the vehicle have to move over, but the law says that the vehicle being overtaken CANNOT INCREASE HIS SPEED until completely passed. This means, it is illegal to "gas it" when someone passes you.  Also, the vehicle being passed has to yield the right of way to the passing vehicle to merge back over into the lane. 

What did you learn?

FACT SCENARIO:  
           Fred is driving his shiny, new car in the left lane, going the speed limit, when he notices a black truck in his rear-view mirror behind him. The truck seems excessively close to Fred's new red Corvette, so Fred taps his breaks to communicate to the other driver to "Back off." The other driver backs off a little but stays behind Fred. 
          Finally, the other driver gets into the right lane to pass Fred, and hits the gas. Black smoke spews out the back of the jacked-up truck. Fred, knowing the power of his 6.2 L, V8 engine, allows his car to gain speed on the flat asphalt. The other driver passes Fred without too much trouble, then cuts left into Fred's lane extremely close to Fred's new set of wheels. Fred, scared stiff, slams on the brakes, loses control of his vehicle, and slams into a parked, pink ice-cream truck. QUESTION -->    Who is at fault?


The chilling truth (Sorry Fred) is that both drivers are at fault, but Fred will likely have to pay his own way. Because his car was the only one damaged, he will pay 100% of the damages.



SO, Share this post with anyone and everyone,    especially those who needs to hear this: 

GET THE  #@!  OVER!!

DOUBLE fines in construction zones? - Not Always!

I recently heard of a man who was pulled over for speeding at nighttime. The officer walked up to the window and began "You realize this is a construction zone?" The man had no idea. It was nighttime and there were no flashing lights. no one could have guessed it was a construction zone.  "Anytime there are orange cones, its a construction zone."  Responded the police officer lazily. "Stay here, I'll get your ticket for DOUBLE the regular fine." The man believed the police officer and paid the fine. After all, why wouldn't you believe a police officer, right?....

Its now time to expose this Police Officer's lies:



The Law:
Utah Code 41-6a-209 does say that fines are double when you are speeding in a construction zone. BUT, what is actually a construction zone?


Much to the Police Officer's dismay, a construction zone is NOT "any time there are orange cones"!! He was dead wrong about that. (I'm sure he feels really bad about it..)





For an officer to fine you double, 3 things must happen:

• Construction WORKERS must be present.

• The construction zone must be CLEARLY marked.

• and there must be SIGNS that say "FINES DOUBLED"

If any of these three things are lacking, the police officer CANNOT fine you double. 

So, next time you are pulled over in a "construction zone" don't drink the officer's koolaid. If you don't see workers, or the "fines doubled" signs, or a clearly marked construction area, YOU ARE NOT IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE. 

The REAL Blacklist

You can be Blacklisted.   And, you can sue who Blacklisted you. 


However, being Blacklisted in real life, is not like the enticing hit series on Netflix. You are not chased by the FBI or by Raymond Reddington (Red). (If you are being chased and need to flee the country, a guide here.)

Instead, if you are Blacklisted, this means someone, or some corporation, is tarnishing your name, attempting to destroy your ability to get a job. The real life scenario is not akin to Red hunting you down with his eloquent charm and reason. It is more like him shaking his fist and yelling "You'll never get a job in this town again!"
Sounds archaic? It happens.

In Utah, the Blacklist law (Utah Code Ann. §§ 34-24-1 to 34-24-2) says this:  

Blacklisting or publishing the name of any former employee with the intent of preventing the employee from obtaining employment is prohibited.

Although, in many cases, you could sue for defamation, suing under the Blacklist Law has a huge advantage: you do not have to prove that you suffered actual harm (like not being hired). This is often the most difficult part of defamation cases. Instead, you just prove that your name was Blacklisted and you win. (this is equivalent to proving 1/3 of a defamation case.)


Also, suing someone under the Blacklist Law is much more badass than defamation. (And Likely James-Spader-approved)


If you are consistently on the verge of being hired for a job, then suddenly rejected, you could have been Blacklisted. Don't take it sitting down. Get help from an attorney, and keep watching that addicting, suspenseful show - THE BLACKLIST.

As Always, Thanks for Reading.

'American Sniper' Murderer claims he was insane. Was he?

Chris Kyle 'American Sniper' - Played by Bradley Cooper

Chris Kyle and a friend were gunned down at a Texas shooting range. Now, the accused murderer Eddie Ray Routh claims he was insane at the time of the shooting.  Was he?

THE INSANITY DEFENSE:

If a defendant can show that he was insane at the time of the crime, he will be acquitted by "not guilty by reason of insanity." The reasoning behind allowing this "exception" to the law rests in the purposes of punishment: deterrence and retribution - If punishing someone will not deter that person from doing it again, and that person could not help doing what he did, what is the purpose of the punishment?

     How to prove insanity?

In Texas, (where the murder is being tried) the defendant must suffice either the 1) M'Naghten (Right-Wrong) rule, or  2) the Irresistible Impulse rule. Routh is attempting to convince the jury that he is insane under the first rule, the M'Naghten "Right-Wrong" Rule. 

For Routh to suffice the M'Naghten "Right-Wrong" Rule, he must prove two things: 1. That he had a mental defect or disease; and 2. As a result of that mental defect, he did not understand the "nature and quality" of his actions, or he did not know his actions were wrong. 

So far, it has been quite clear that Routh has a mental defect, the prosecution has even conceded this. Routh had Post-Tramatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the time he pulled the trigger. The real questions for the jury are "Did Routh understand the nature and quality of his actions?" and "Did he know his actions were wrong?"  Did He?

SO IS ROUTH INSANE?

The last thing the Jury heard before deliberations was a quote by Routh about the murder. He said:

". . . I shot them because they wouldn't talk to me. . . I feel bad about it, but they wouldn't talk to me. Im sure they've forgiven me." 

The prosecution thinks this quote is imperative to finding him not insane because to "retaliate" suggests an understanding of the "nature and quality" of his actions - it will cause harm.    For example: Routh's feelings were hurt because he believed his victims were ignoring him. So, as a response, he retaliated. He shot them, intending to inflict the same pain that he felt upon them. He intended harm and understood that shooting them would harm them.

      But did he know that inflicting that pain was "wrong"?

REMEMBER, It is not enough that Routh knew his actions would cause pain, he must have also believed that his actions were "wrong." 

This is a guy who spent much of his influential years killing people as a soldier. He was trained to fire without hesitation and to not feel the consequences of killing. He was instructed that killing the enemy protects his country.   But  did this training remove all emotional understanding of killing? What about killing two of his own? Two of his "brothers"?  Did he really think that killing two fellow military men was morally acceptable?   -  To be found insane, he would have to. 

These are the questions the Jury will be losing sleep over. I invite your responses below. Weigh in and be heard.

Thanks for reading.