History Main / BotheringByTheBook

26th Apr '18 7:25:05 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This is also how specialized DUI ('''D'''riving '''U'''nder the '''I'''nfluence of alcohol)/DWI ('''D'''riving '''W'''hile '''I'''ntoxicated) lawyers help clients beat DUI charges, at least in the U.S. In most jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove that you were intoxicated to support a DUI conviction, and in most jurisdictions, intoxication is considered proven if your blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds 0.08%, with increased penalties if the BAC exceeds 0.10% or 0.15%. Just one problem--measuring blood alcohol content directly (by taking a blood sample) is a pain, not only in the sense that it is painful and invasive for the suspect, but also because drawing blood is a technical hassle for the police both medically and (in the U.S. at least) legally (they need a warrant). So they rely on specialized breath-testing equipment kept at the police station to prove it indirectly based on breath alcohol content ([=BrAC=]). Measured accurately and under certain circumstances, [=BrAC=] correlates well enough with BAC to support a conviction. However, the equipment needs to be correctly calibrated, and certain procedures need to be followed. If the police failed to correctly calibrate the equipment, or did not follow correct procedure, the court must rely on the police observation of the driver to support a finding of intoxication--which can be quite difficult, and is often seen as a waste of police and prosecutorial resources--and cannot make a finding at all regarding the increased penalties for BAC exceeding 0.10%. This is why UsefulNotes/NewJersey's Supreme Court devoted [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5814645192369746502 no fewer than 102 pages]] of the ''New Jersey Reports'' to the circumstances under which a newly-developed piece of breath-testing equipment was accurate enough to serve as evidence of intoxication (''State v. Chun'', 194 N.J. 54 (2008)), and why (in the same state) up to ''20,000'' DWI convictions (as of 2017) [[http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/20k_dwi_cases_could_be_tossed_amid_state_police_pr.html may be thrown out]] because ''one'' State Trooper responsible for calibrating the machines in a number of towns didn't use the right kind of thermometer in doing his calibrations.

to:

** This is also how specialized DUI ('''D'''riving '''U'''nder the '''I'''nfluence of alcohol)/DWI ('''D'''riving '''W'''hile '''I'''ntoxicated) lawyers help clients beat DUI charges, at least in the U.S. In most jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove that you were intoxicated to support a DUI conviction, and in most jurisdictions, intoxication is considered proven if your blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds 0.08%, with increased penalties if the BAC exceeds some higher figure, generally between 0.10% or 0.15%. Just one problem--measuring blood alcohol content directly (by taking a blood sample) is a pain, not only in the sense that it is painful and invasive for the suspect, but also because drawing blood is a technical hassle for the police both medically and (in the U.S. at least) legally (they need a warrant). So they rely on specialized breath-testing equipment kept at the police station to prove it indirectly based on breath alcohol content ([=BrAC=]). Measured accurately and under certain circumstances, [=BrAC=] correlates well enough with BAC to support a conviction. However, the equipment needs to be correctly calibrated, and certain procedures need to be followed. If the police failed to correctly calibrate the equipment, or did not follow correct procedure, the court must rely on the police observation of the driver to support a finding of intoxication--which can be quite difficult, and is often seen as a waste of police and prosecutorial resources--and cannot make a finding at all regarding the increased penalties for BAC exceeding 0.10%.10% (or whatever). This is why UsefulNotes/NewJersey's Supreme Court devoted [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5814645192369746502 no fewer than 102 pages]] of the ''New Jersey Reports'' to the circumstances under which a newly-developed piece of breath-testing equipment was accurate enough to serve as evidence of intoxication (''State v. Chun'', 194 N.J. 54 (2008)), and why (in the same state) up to ''20,000'' DWI convictions (as of 2017) [[http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/20k_dwi_cases_could_be_tossed_amid_state_police_pr.html may be thrown out]] because ''one'' State Trooper responsible for calibrating the machines in a number of towns didn't use the right kind of thermometer in doing his calibrations.
26th Apr '18 7:24:07 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This is also how specialized DUI ('''D'''riving '''U'''nder the '''I'''nfluence of alcohol)/DWI ('''D'''riving '''W'''hile '''I'''ntoxicated) lawyers help clients beat DUI charges, at least in the U.S. In most jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove that you were intoxicated to support a DUI conviction, and in most jurisdictions, intoxication is considered proven if your blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds 0.08%, with increased penalties if the BAC exceeds 0.10%. Just one problem--measuring blood alcohol content directly (by taking a blood sample) is a pain, not only in the sense that it is painful and invasive for the suspect, but also because drawing blood is a technical hassle for the police both medically and (in the U.S. at least) legally (they need a warrant). So they rely on specialized breath-testing equipment kept at the police station to prove it indirectly based on breath alcohol content ([=BrAC=]). Measured accurately and under certain circumstances, [=BrAC=] correlates well enough with BAC to support a conviction. However, the equipment needs to be correctly calibrated, and certain procedures need to be followed. If the police failed to correctly calibrate the equipment, or did not follow correct procedure, the court must rely on the police observation of the driver to support a finding of intoxication--which can be quite difficult, and is often seen as a waste of police and prosecutorial resources--and cannot make a finding at all regarding the increased penalties for BAC exceeding 0.10%. This is why UsefulNotes/NewJersey's Supreme Court devoted [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5814645192369746502 no fewer than 102 pages]] of the ''New Jersey Reports'' to the circumstances under which a newly-developed piece of breath-testing equipment was accurate enough to serve as evidence of intoxication (''State v. Chun'', 194 N.J. 54 (2008)), and why (in the same state) up to ''20,000'' DWI convictions (as of 2017) [[http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/20k_dwi_cases_could_be_tossed_amid_state_police_pr.html may be thrown out]] because ''one'' State Trooper responsible for calibrating the machines in a number of towns didn't use the right kind of thermometer in doing his calibrations.

to:

** This is also how specialized DUI ('''D'''riving '''U'''nder the '''I'''nfluence of alcohol)/DWI ('''D'''riving '''W'''hile '''I'''ntoxicated) lawyers help clients beat DUI charges, at least in the U.S. In most jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove that you were intoxicated to support a DUI conviction, and in most jurisdictions, intoxication is considered proven if your blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds 0.08%, with increased penalties if the BAC exceeds 0.10%.10% or 0.15%. Just one problem--measuring blood alcohol content directly (by taking a blood sample) is a pain, not only in the sense that it is painful and invasive for the suspect, but also because drawing blood is a technical hassle for the police both medically and (in the U.S. at least) legally (they need a warrant). So they rely on specialized breath-testing equipment kept at the police station to prove it indirectly based on breath alcohol content ([=BrAC=]). Measured accurately and under certain circumstances, [=BrAC=] correlates well enough with BAC to support a conviction. However, the equipment needs to be correctly calibrated, and certain procedures need to be followed. If the police failed to correctly calibrate the equipment, or did not follow correct procedure, the court must rely on the police observation of the driver to support a finding of intoxication--which can be quite difficult, and is often seen as a waste of police and prosecutorial resources--and cannot make a finding at all regarding the increased penalties for BAC exceeding 0.10%. This is why UsefulNotes/NewJersey's Supreme Court devoted [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5814645192369746502 no fewer than 102 pages]] of the ''New Jersey Reports'' to the circumstances under which a newly-developed piece of breath-testing equipment was accurate enough to serve as evidence of intoxication (''State v. Chun'', 194 N.J. 54 (2008)), and why (in the same state) up to ''20,000'' DWI convictions (as of 2017) [[http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/20k_dwi_cases_could_be_tossed_amid_state_police_pr.html may be thrown out]] because ''one'' State Trooper responsible for calibrating the machines in a number of towns didn't use the right kind of thermometer in doing his calibrations.
26th Apr '18 7:22:55 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This is also how specialized DUI ('''D'''riving '''U'''nder the '''I'''nfluence of alcohol)/DWI ('''D'''riving '''W'''hile '''I'''ntoxicated) lawyers help clients beat DUI charges, at least in the U.S. In most jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove that you were intoxicated to support a DUI conviction, and in most jurisdictions, intoxication is considered proven if your blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds 0.08%. Just one problem--measuring blood alcohol content directly (by taking a blood sample) is a pain, not only in the sense that it is painful and invasive for the suspect, but also because drawing blood is a technical hassle for the police both medically and (in the U.S. at least) legally (they need a warrant). So they rely on specialized breath-testing equipment kept at the police station to prove it indirectly based on breath alcohol content ([=BrAC=]). Measured accurately and under certain circumstances, [=BrAC=] correlates well enough with BAC to support a conviction. However, the equipment needs to be correctly calibrated, and certain procedures need to be followed. If the police failed to correctly calibrate the equipment, or did not follow correct procedure, the court must rely on the police observation of the driver to support a finding of intoxication--which can be quite difficult, and is often seen as a waste of police and prosecutorial resources. This is why UsefulNotes/NewJersey's Supreme Court devoted [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5814645192369746502 no fewer than 102 pages]] of the ''New Jersey Reports'' to the circumstances under which a newly-developed piece of breath-testing equipment was accurate enough to serve as evidence of intoxication (''State v. Chun'', 194 N.J. 54 (2008)), and why (in the same state) up to ''20,000'' DWI convictions (as of 2017) [[http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/20k_dwi_cases_could_be_tossed_amid_state_police_pr.html may be thrown out]] because ''one'' State Trooper responsible for calibrating the machines in a number of towns didn't use the right kind of thermometer in doing his calibrations.

to:

** This is also how specialized DUI ('''D'''riving '''U'''nder the '''I'''nfluence of alcohol)/DWI ('''D'''riving '''W'''hile '''I'''ntoxicated) lawyers help clients beat DUI charges, at least in the U.S. In most jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove that you were intoxicated to support a DUI conviction, and in most jurisdictions, intoxication is considered proven if your blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds 0.08%.08%, with increased penalties if the BAC exceeds 0.10%. Just one problem--measuring blood alcohol content directly (by taking a blood sample) is a pain, not only in the sense that it is painful and invasive for the suspect, but also because drawing blood is a technical hassle for the police both medically and (in the U.S. at least) legally (they need a warrant). So they rely on specialized breath-testing equipment kept at the police station to prove it indirectly based on breath alcohol content ([=BrAC=]). Measured accurately and under certain circumstances, [=BrAC=] correlates well enough with BAC to support a conviction. However, the equipment needs to be correctly calibrated, and certain procedures need to be followed. If the police failed to correctly calibrate the equipment, or did not follow correct procedure, the court must rely on the police observation of the driver to support a finding of intoxication--which can be quite difficult, and is often seen as a waste of police and prosecutorial resources.resources--and cannot make a finding at all regarding the increased penalties for BAC exceeding 0.10%. This is why UsefulNotes/NewJersey's Supreme Court devoted [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5814645192369746502 no fewer than 102 pages]] of the ''New Jersey Reports'' to the circumstances under which a newly-developed piece of breath-testing equipment was accurate enough to serve as evidence of intoxication (''State v. Chun'', 194 N.J. 54 (2008)), and why (in the same state) up to ''20,000'' DWI convictions (as of 2017) [[http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/20k_dwi_cases_could_be_tossed_amid_state_police_pr.html may be thrown out]] because ''one'' State Trooper responsible for calibrating the machines in a number of towns didn't use the right kind of thermometer in doing his calibrations.
26th Apr '18 7:20:00 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** This is also how specialized DUI ('''D'''riving '''U'''nder the '''I'''nfluence of alcohol)/DWI ('''D'''riving '''W'''hile '''I'''ntoxicated) lawyers help clients beat DUI charges, at least in the U.S. In most jurisdictions, the prosecution must prove that you were intoxicated to support a DUI conviction, and in most jurisdictions, intoxication is considered proven if your blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds 0.08%. Just one problem--measuring blood alcohol content directly (by taking a blood sample) is a pain, not only in the sense that it is painful and invasive for the suspect, but also because drawing blood is a technical hassle for the police both medically and (in the U.S. at least) legally (they need a warrant). So they rely on specialized breath-testing equipment kept at the police station to prove it indirectly based on breath alcohol content ([=BrAC=]). Measured accurately and under certain circumstances, [=BrAC=] correlates well enough with BAC to support a conviction. However, the equipment needs to be correctly calibrated, and certain procedures need to be followed. If the police failed to correctly calibrate the equipment, or did not follow correct procedure, the court must rely on the police observation of the driver to support a finding of intoxication--which can be quite difficult, and is often seen as a waste of police and prosecutorial resources. This is why UsefulNotes/NewJersey's Supreme Court devoted [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5814645192369746502 no fewer than 102 pages]] of the ''New Jersey Reports'' to the circumstances under which a newly-developed piece of breath-testing equipment was accurate enough to serve as evidence of intoxication (''State v. Chun'', 194 N.J. 54 (2008)), and why (in the same state) up to ''20,000'' DWI convictions (as of 2017) [[http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/20k_dwi_cases_could_be_tossed_amid_state_police_pr.html may be thrown out]] because ''one'' State Trooper responsible for calibrating the machines in a number of towns didn't use the right kind of thermometer in doing his calibrations.
17th Apr '18 9:18:35 PM IronicMouse
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* An outtake of the 1981 BBC TV Version of ''Series/TheHitchikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' shows the actors struggling to complete a scene before the crew turns the lights off.

to:

* An outtake of the 1981 BBC TV Version of ''Series/TheHitchikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' ''Series/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' shows the actors struggling to complete a scene before the crew turns the lights off.
16th Mar '18 3:26:46 PM eroock
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In ''Film/{{Brazil}},'' Sam keeps the Central Services workers out of his apartment (for a while, at least) by asking to see their form 27B/6, claiming he's "a bit of a stickler for paperwork." From their reactions, it's pretty clear it's a bureaucratic formality they usually gloss over. Later shot back in Lowry's face when the same workers not only arrive with the proper paperwork made, but with extra forms that allow them to kick Lowry out of his apartment and completely demolish it for "emergency repairs" that they have no desire of ever finishing in revenge.

to:

* In ''Film/{{Brazil}},'' Sam keeps the Central Services workers out of his apartment (for a while, at least) by asking to see their form 27B/6, claiming he's "a bit of a stickler for paperwork." From their reactions, it's pretty clear it's a bureaucratic formality they usually gloss over. Later [[IronicEcho shot back in Lowry's face face]] when the same workers not only arrive with the proper paperwork made, but with extra forms that allow them to kick Lowry out of his apartment and completely demolish it for "emergency repairs" that they have no desire of ever finishing in revenge.
11th Mar '18 2:46:21 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This can be a problem on ThisVeryWiki from time to time. Suffice it to say, formatting enforcers, as they've been called, tend to make mistakes when enforcing formatting rules, often leading to skirmishes between us and hardcore GrammarNazis, [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment which is all that needs to be said about that]]. It's gotten so bad, there was a discussion at one point about the possibility of the creation of a task force dedicated to spelling, grammar, and formatting, part of the intended purpose being to curb the mistakes commonly made by formatting enforcers.

to:

* This can be a problem on ThisVeryWiki Wiki/ThisVeryWiki from time to time. Suffice it to say, formatting enforcers, as they've been called, tend to make mistakes when enforcing formatting rules, often leading to skirmishes between us and hardcore GrammarNazis, [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment which is all that needs to be said about that]]. It's gotten so bad, there was a discussion at one point about the possibility of the creation of a task force dedicated to spelling, grammar, and formatting, part of the intended purpose being to curb the mistakes commonly made by formatting enforcers.
10th Mar '18 11:22:11 AM eldiablo555
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* In one U.S. Acres episode of ''WesternAnimation/GarfieldAndFriends'' the animals find a law book and decide to implement these laws on the farm. Orson names Roy Rooster as the Deputy Sheriff and Roy quickly goes on a power trip arresting everyone for violating the extremely ridiculous laws in the book. They try to invoke this trope by telling Roy about the laws he's violating unfortunately it backfires since Roy just locks himself in the jail cell with everyone else and throws away the key.
4th Mar '18 2:36:36 PM thatother1dude
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In the Literature/{{Discworld}} novels, it's suggested that golems rebel this way (they tend to parody various [[RobotRollCall robot related tropes]]) until they are free. This has the side effect of convincing people that they are stupid and/or insane.

to:

* In the Literature/{{Discworld}} novels, it's Literature/{{Discworld}}:
** It's
suggested that golems rebel this way (they (who tend to parody various [[RobotRollCall robot related tropes]]) rebel by [[AbsurdlyDedicatedWorker ceaselessly and repeating fulfilling their last assigned task]] until they are free. This has the side effect of convincing people that they are stupid and/or insane.
2nd Mar '18 9:59:51 AM CheeseDogX
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In pen-and-paper [=RPGs=], doing this is called being a RulesLawyer.

to:

* In pen-and-paper [=RPGs=], doing this is called being a RulesLawyer. It's generally frowned upon, as such players tend to be StopHavingFunGuys, ignore the spirit of the rules (especially RuleZero) and also have a suspicious tendency to only point out rules when it benefits them.
This list shows the last 10 events of 322. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.BotheringByTheBook