McLaren777 Reportage: RIAA, Webhost, local Police

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by 996 911 Turbo, Mar 1, 2006.

  1. And if he spent a year in jail? What if it's a state jail felony where he is? Would you be comfortable getting someone labeled a felon for the rest of their lives because he got mad about some titties?

    I'd rather spend a year in jail than get that title.
     
  2. Wow. This is really #$%#ed up. I would never use law enforcement to get back at someone for some personal issues I have with him/her. I can't believe so many of you are like +1, this is a weak and childish way to handle a personal problem.
     
  3.  
  4. I didn't do it solely because of the tits issue. I'm not really in to tits, if you remember...
     
  5. So what happened with this? I've missed so much drama.
     
  6. nil.
     
  7. "Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars." ~WA State Legislature

    Being that the worst offense he committed was a gross misdemeanor then the statue of limitations in WA is 3 years. We are now 4+ years since the event and no one in WA has ever been convicted of a traffic violation on the basis of amateur video. Police video is a whole different story. If convictions on the basis of video where possible then there are hundreds of youtube videos that would have been prosecuted by now.

    As for the music at least 2 of the 3 groups he has on his website own their own music and therefore they would have to bring suits against mc777 personally. All 3 of these bands are the kind that care more about the message and the spread of their music than their profits and so any action against him is very unlikely.

    So it was a nice attempt at a backlash for whatever he did to anger you but you failed.
     
  8. we were less than 3 years after when I emailed the pigs. i think its less than 3 years now even.

    people have been prosecuted based on amateur video, there was a guy in an F40 who got #$%#ed. just because WA has never done it doesn't mean its impossible.

    as I said several times when the thread was new, I wasn't trying to really get him #$%#ed - I just wanted him to get some of his own medicine and freak out a bit. I gave him plenty of warning.
     
  9. Yeah I recall, maybe it's just that I've never seen him be any more out of line than say...well, you or me. But either way, if you wanted to strike do it in an aggravating way like we always have. Not something with the potential for a sodomy super adventure.
     
  10. October 2003 to now = 4+ years

    Where was this F40? In most states traffic offenses have to be witnessed by a law enforcement officer or a law enforcement camera. It is part of the "preponderance of the evidence" that has to be fulfilled for most traffic violations.

    Oh and I am glad to know that you are the self appointed person who sees to it that everyone gets theirs in turn. Can I send you my list of those who have wronged me so that you can get them some of this medicine?? Really?? You have nothing better to do??
     
  11. Post the speeding video please!
     
  12. Nothings going to happen though. The Government has bigger fish to fry.
     
  13. to now, yes. to the time I sent the email, no. March 2006 is less than 3 years from October 2003.

    and no, I didn't have anything better to do. took like 30 minutes, don't tell me you don't have a half hour to spare each day.
     
  14. It's not the amount of time that it took, it's the usage. Most everyone has a half hour to spare everyday, we just don't use it trying to do bad shit to people we've never met through e-mail.
     
  15.  
  16.  
  17. He was going to do the same thing to P996T after he milked his cock, willingly. He acts like a 13 year old girl in every sense of the word. Be it the #%[email protected] or the liking of 13 year old boys.
     
  18. I wouldn't feel bad if they did come down on Luke for this, but that doesn't mean that Smellens isn't a dick.
     
  19. You're wrong about a dozen different things. Stop posting like you know what you're talking about.
     
  20. Please elaborate...
     
  21.  
  22. 1) It's a two-year statute of limitations in WA for gross misdemeanors, not three. Though to be fair, that only helps your point that it was too late for the cops to do anything with it if the video was from 2003.

    2) A video clearly showing the driver and clearly showing the car speeding would be plenty to support a conviction for reckless driving. Most traffic convictions stand on a whole lot less than that. What in the world makes you think that nobody in Washington has been convicted of a crime based on home video evidence? Remember, reckless driving is a criminal offense - a gross misdemeanor. Video of crimes makes for some very good evidence. The fact that it is a traffic offense is completely irrelevant. And why would a police video be any different from a home video? A video is a video - it doesn't matter where it's coming from. Not to mention that a video taken from the inside of the car, clearly showing the driver, would be more convincing than a police video that doesn't show the driver. Just because YouTube videos don't often result in convictions doesn't mean that they couldn't.

    3) Traffic offenses don't have to be witnessed by a cop or a traffic camera to result in a conviction. Hell, my wife and I signed a complaint against a guy who tried to run us off the road a year or so ago. He was initially charged with reckless driving and eventually pled guilty to a lesser charge. There was no evidence whatsoever except for the testimony of my wife and I. If somebody breaks a traffic violation, you can go down to the police station, sign a complaint against them, and they can be prosecuted. Cops generally make good witnesses, but that's about it. There's absolutely no requirement that a cop actually witness the incident in order to sustain a conviction.

    4) Preponderance of the evidence? What is this, a civil trial? Conviction for a crime (say, for example, a gross misdemeanor like reckless driving) requires the establishment of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
     

Share This Page