Yeah it’s not like players are actively looking for ways around rules or to escape boundaries or anything 🤣
You repeatedly bring in other laws that you assume need to be broken, they don’t. I’ve said it many times. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
You need to read up on case law and how many judgements on ridiculous things have been made.
Again bringing up other laws for no reason.
It isn’t.
Again:
What you are arguing is just as odd as saying “It’s not illegal to fire a gun, the guy just happened to be where my bullet landed” .
Because those other laws directly make sure that people aren’t disturbed from a certain action. What’s so hard to understand here ?
Vehicle noises are being regulated for the sole purpose of not disturbing people, so if you feel disturbed you should bring that law to question, not someone who’s abiding to it lmao. I seriously don’t understand how you still can’t see this.
Yeah, I’m sure they did dozens of cases where nutcases were disturbed by simple colors, just so they can all agree with that wearing colors isn’t illegal.
Meanwhile you’re saying that everything is a disturbance if you want it to be hard enough.
It pretty much is as there are group of people that are getting paid to establish order on public roads, you as a civilian have a right to select them via elections though. Trying to stop traffic on your own accord is pretty much traffic impeding, which is also illegal.
As I said, even police officers can’t ban you from driving a vehicle on a public road if they don’t have any reason that’s valid by the law, so thinking civilians can do anything even remotely close to that is funny.
It’s actually illegal to discharge your firearm in public nilly-willy in many western countries, so your mileage can vary.
As I said already, I don’t see a single line of responsibility for that vehicle driver, as he was doing everything by the book and had no idea about your thoughts and feelings. Bringing him to court instead of your county or whatever breaks common sense so hard it’s painful to watch.
Outplaying (spawning a plane) is tying him up (he spawned a tank that cannot fly).
Most sane cas abuser take.
That for the purposes of the public disturbance law, NO other law NEEDS to be broken for it to take effect.
Because it doesn’t matter, you can break one law without also having breaking another. if you have a to loud car it is still against that law without it having to disturb someone for that to be true, conversely you can disturb someone with your cars noise without it also being to loud in relation to that law.
Here is a real world example of someone who got fined for playing loud music in his car in a public area: ( https://www.aklagare.se/globalassets/dokument/verksamheten-i-hogsta-domstolen/svarsskrivelser-och-forklaringar/2023/amr-3873-23-forargelsevackande-beteende.pdf )
The letter discusses an appeal to the initial judgement, an appeal that is rejected. It also lists several other cases of similar types. There is no dB level listed and there is no definition of what is considered to loud, it only has to be judged to be loud enough to typically disturb others. There are no other laws than public disturbance that comes into play, no defined levels and no definitions of any kind of what most of those vague words mean. Because there doesn’t have to be. You might think that is unreasonable and you are free to think so, but it isn’t necessary for things to be defined.
Basically yes.
With relation to that law, yes. Then weather or not it is later judged to be a disturbance or not is a different thing. But solely in relation to if it would fall under the law as written, then yes.
Here is an example case where a guy standing on top of a hill waved a Swedish flag that had been modified to have a viking head, a sun cross and an axe painted on it during a Swedish holiday celebration: ( RH 1997:24 | lagen.nu ). It was judged to be a public disturbance and he was fined ~50 Euro, he appealed but the judgement was held.
Again, you’re assuming political structure. In Sweden the only thing you as a civilian vote for is what party it is you want to hold power in 3 areas: Cuntry, county and municipality. You can chose different parties for each area and different areas have different parties running for the election. Then once the election is done voting power is divided among the parties depending on percent of received election votes. THEY then have their own votes on how things are to be run, you as a civilian have no say in the group of people selected to establish order on public roads.
I never implied nor said that this is what i ment. I only said that you have the right to call law enforcement for that issue and that it is reasonably within that law to do so. They then judge on the spot if it reasonable or not to charge that person with public disturbance and issue a fine, that person can then challenge that judgment in court, if the first level of court rules against that person they can again appeal to the next level of court, and then again a third time, once it’s up in the third level what they decide there practically becomes example cases for future judgements.
You’re adding context again. Did i say any of that?
You are free to that opinion but again, its’ up to the judicial system to judge on a case by case basis. The law just means that it’s reasonable to bring up for judgement in the first place. The circumstances will be the deciding factor but the law in of itself means that it’s okay to bring to court and have judged. I agree that just driving normally on a road without ANY surrounding circumstances playing a role would not be punished, but until the first judgement on such a case you can bring it to court.
This can be equated to your loopholes, until judged and patched it’s reasonable to bring to court.
Too much to read about laws. Motorola, what is your goal here exactly in short words? That the rules are not detailed enough to specify when to J out?
That’s for the purpose of the public disturbance by vehicle noise, so claiming that vehicles disturbed you due to their legal noise levels doesn’t hold any ground.
In this case you can’t as the vehicle’s noise levels you’re complaining about are explicitly defined somewhere, thus if those numbers are perfectly within limits you can’t complain about it in the way you’re wanting to.
I don’t know if there’s a listed dB level for music, but for vehicle exhausts there certainly is one.
In car’s case there is actually a definition of what is considered too loud and if you fall within those parameters, you can’t be held accountable for disturbing anyone.
People that made the law already judged what’s too loud for a vehicle’s exhaust and because of that the limits had been set already. Laws about that are constantly changing and the legal limit is constantly being dropped, as it’s obviously for the best to reduce the noise pollution and the impact it has on surrounding life.
Vehicle noise levels are explicitly defined.
Modifying the national flag might be illegal on it’s own.
The proper example or equivalent of my resident/bike case would be if he had painted a clown on the Swedish flag and someone found it disturbing. That case would fall flat on it’s face if the law explicitly states that painting a clown on the national flag is legal.
You arguing that thing is disturbing you might end up in you being offered some medical assistance or a notion to change that clown-on-a-flag law on it’s own. Person doing that has no grounds to be held accountable for your woes, as what he did is explicitly protected by the law to be an okay behavior.
During their election campaigns, don’t you see politicians talking about hot topics and how they’ll change them for the better if you give them your vote ?
If vehicles strolling by in a normal fashion was such a disturbing event for the masses, I think the laws on car noise levels and noise pollution from roads as a whole would change rapidly.
You can call the cops on someone you think has an illegal car that’s making too much noise. Cops would have to measure the noise levels but if they fall under a legal limit you literally can’t do anything about it.
Writing a fine to anyone involved would then be out of the question.
No, in my example I explicitly stated it’s a public place, so if you want to pull an equivalent you should talk about public spaces as well.
It’s not my opinion, it’s defined by the law.
Rules are too vague and some aren’t even specified.
Not J-ing out in some vehicles might be considered as griefing as well.
Too many things are just open for interpretation.
That is where you’re simply wrong. Perhaps that is the case in the legal system that you currently live in, but it is not the case everywhere.
Again, see above. Depends on the legal system. There ABSOLUTELY are places where what you say isn’t true.
There isn’t one for music. Again, doesn’t matter, and again see above.
See above.
but doesn’t have to have anything to do with the public disturbance law, it can if judged that way, but doesn’t have to, and again, see above.
Not what the person was charged with and didn’t play a role in the outcome.
that is your personal beliefs. Doesn’t change the facts though. some places wont entertain that idea, others will. You can’t state as a fact that they wont for all cases and all countries. I’m stating that there will be cases where my examples hold true, you’re arguing that they never will, that simply isn’t realistic and your personal beliefs on how things should be doesn’t change that fact that there are cases and places where the opposite will hold true.
What does that have to do with the argument?
You said that civilians vote for who they want to uphold order on public roads, i gave you an example of where that isn’t always the case.
In your country perhaps, in others it can still be possible to do something about it. Everything isn’t handled the same everywhere.
See above.
There are shooting ranges that are public spaces.
Which one?
That is my entire point, it depends on what law you are looking at and what country. There absolutely will be cases where your thing doesn’t hold true. I’ve only ever argued that there will be such cases somewhere and with some laws. You can’t then apply a different specific law from another place and say that the first place and law doesn’t exist and my examples won’t happen.
Your entire argument relies on a specific judicial system (i assume the one you live with), my entire argument relies on that there are cases, countries and judicial systems that work differently.
And again, you might not like those systems and those laws, but that is very much a subjective opinion. They still exist and are actively used on large scale.
I’m not wrong.
Vehicle’s allowable noise levels are explicitly defined so vehicles don’t cause disturbances by simply driving around normally. As stated before, medical field has already figured out how much noise is too much for an average person to handle on the regular.
It does matter as then you can argue that basically any levels of music are disturbing.
Vehicle’s noise level being explicitly defined literally means that vehicle’s noise under the upper allowable limit is not disturbing by definition.
Good thing that listening to music on a speaker is a much rarer occurrence than driving your car on a road, so they can get away with vagueness.
You can’t fall under that law if you’re driving a legal car normally and at that point you aren’t causing any disturbance with that action, as that’s already been defined.
Noise is directly linked to disturbance, I don’t really see any other connections.
This isn’t my personal belief.
You can’t argue that someone is disturbing you by an action that’s perfectly defined and explicitly stated to be legal. You can argue that the law itself and it’s limits are disturbing to you, thus you want it changed though.
It might as you’re quoting cases that touch up on laws which aren’t clearly defined, which is a real life example of how flawed that system is. I’m giving you examples how a properly written law can stop these ludicrous lawsuits caused by vague mess.
Civilians don’t just vote for names, they vote for promises those names give out.
If your biggest issue is the road law, you don’t vote for people that don’t care about it at all and won’t try to change something there to suit your wishes and needs. Likewise, if one person is anti-abortion and wants that law to change in his favor, he won’t give his vote to someone that is pro-abortion and will likely side with a faction that have similar views.
This is why I said before that civilians can affect that, in one way or another.
It’s funny that you think this.
Then define it properly, don’t be like WT.
I explicitly stated that the road was public as there are private roads as well.
One introduced confusion and the another one didn’t, go figure.
The one that states the limits on noise a vehicle can produce.
The noise clause is there to stop vehicles from disturbing people, so it’s already been defined what does and doesn’t disturb people when it comes to vehicle’s noise. You can of course have your own opinion if a noise disturbs you, but if it explicitly falls under the legal limits that’s about it.
Your opinion that you can send whoever you want to court based on that one law is ridiculous.
Imagine getting stopped by police in your car.
Good day sir, we’ve got a report that your speed is disturbing someone, so we’ve clocked you at 40km/h in an area where it’s legally allowed to go 60km/h. I’m afraid we’ve to write you a ticket for disturbance anyways, so you either pay up 50 of the state currency or waste your time going to a court that might be 100-200km away just to fight this nonsense. Goodbye.
-Happened in: Clownistan
Good thing that most (if not all) major laws are written explicitly.
Shame WT doesn’t follow that, as obviously less work = better for Gaijin which has been a trend for years now.
This is absolutely true as a blanket statement.
My issue is with this part:
That is where you are wrong. For the purposes of that specific Swedish law, the allowed vehicle noise level does not have to have been broken for it to be able to cause a disturbance. Again, depends on the legal system used. You might be correct in one system but not the other, that is my point.
It only matters in terms of your subjective view of it and how you want it to be vs how it is. Strictly objectively with that law it factually doesn’t matter.
In what law system has that been defined?
You keep saying things that doesn’t apply to the examples i use.
You absolutely can, that is my entire point. you might not think so, but you can. The judicial system might then completely dismiss your case and/or make an example case out of it to show that it is perfectly fine, but before that happens you are absolutely free to argue that and file reports about it and have the case tested.
You keep arguing with the basis of a system not used in my examples.
The exact same holds true for a properly defined system as well, all loopholes have to be tested just the same. That is the entire basis of case law.
Agreed, but it will cause other issues that can be equated to the other systems issues. no system is without its flaws.
Sure, indirectly. But that isn’t what you stated at the start of that specific argument and isn’t what i responded to.
It really isn’t. it doesn’t matter what you think about that fact, it is a fact nonetheless.
I’ve already provided examples of real cases where people have been fined for public disturbance when no other law was broken.
I ment which law system. Do ALL of them have this? Do they ALL explicitly state that the level have to be above the legal limit to be able to fall under the other different law on public disturbance?
Amazingly you picked an example that actually happens
( Polisen gav bilist böter – för att han körde för sakta | Teknikens Värld )
( Körde för sakta – fick böter )
( Åtalas – för att hon körde för långsamt )
( Köra för sakta – gav böter och indraget körkort )
There are many more examples but i think you get the point.
Subjective opinion that you are free to have.
This doesn’t make any sense at all.
Your subjective view is out of the question if law explicitly states what levels of noise from music/vehicle is not considered to be a disturbance. This is why vague laws have million ways of interpretation.
Music at or below 50dB is considered normal and fine between 08:00 - 22:00 hours, and thus can’t cause any problems or disturbances.
Simply written law that explicitly states what’s good and what’s bad, so no one can interpret it in their own way and tell “uhm it’s actually bad in my opinion”, no it isn’t.
In a law system that consider vehicles to not be a tools of disturbance if properly operated under a set of defined rules ?
My bad I phrased it wrongly.
You can argue anything, even that 2 + 2 isn’t 4 and that earth is flat, but mostly no one would be entertaining your shenanigans.
A driver can only follow the rules that have been written, so he can’t be held accountable for disturbing anyone if he’s driving normally because there’s nothing there written about that.
People don’t have written on their foreheads what might disturb them, so the driver in this case did nothing wrong.
Properly defined systems actually protect people from ludicrous claims like that.
The same way how you aren’t speeding if you drive under the maximum allowable speed limit, so some guy’s opinion doesn’t hold any weight in this matter as everything is already set in stone.
Wish we had some of those in WT, would be great to actually know what’s good and bad behavior.
At this point anything is better than getting fined for “disturbing” just because I was driving my car in a normal and legal fashion.
I said:
Bottom line is that public servants in real life are chosen by the people in one way or another.
There’s a clear distinction between you not breaking any other law because there isn’t any that you can follow and you perfectly abiding to the clearly defined law.
Your two cases are perfectly similar by the fact in both people were doing something that’s not been properly defined. Listening to music in public and flag manipulation seems to not be defined in Sweden, so people obviously have no guidelines on how to behave.
My two cases are also similar by the fact both had people doing something perfectly by the books so everything was explicitly legal.
Listening to music in public might or might not be legal, depends on the situation as the law is vague.
Driving your legal vehicle in a normal fashion on a public road is always legal by default until some other explicitly stated rule, like road closure, supersedes that legal by default state.
I hope you can see the differences and how one of those laws actually protects (giving them full right to do something) their citizens from funny business.
I see that you still aren’t understanding the connection between noise and disturbance, so I’ll create you (hopefully) an easier example.
Imagine if Sweden had a law that states open carry of a firearm is legal if you have a license. You calling the cops on that person would make them go through that person’s licenses and permits and if everything checks out there’s nothing they can do about it. Do you know why ?
Anything that is explicitly legal can’t cause disturbances on a legal level, as otherwise the country would ignore their own laws which is quite ridiculous. However, country can decide to revoke the open carry law because people are unhappy about it, but until then punishing individuals for abiding the law is a fallacy.
Here’s your law that states you can open carry a firearm, but it comes with a caveat that you can be fined at random, basically implying what you did is illegal.
That would be one of the most insane things written, ever.
All those cases are of people breaking the law of driving too slowly which is a road law of it’s own (impeding traffic) and not a public disturbance law. It is also vaguely defined in many countries which creates issues like what you’ve shown. It’s yet another example of how explicitly defined limits would solve all the confusion. I could simply reword my case for you to be driving at the maximum speed limit, so the driving too slowly law wouldn’t be applicable in any way. What then ?
Slowest speed you can drive at is defined to be 50% of the maximum speed limit specified on that part of the road. If you’re driving under the maximum speed limit, you’re mandated to yield to any group of vehicles (3 or more) on the first appropriate place (later defined).
It’s honestly amazing how easily certain things can get fixed by simply applying clear cut rules.
405
405
Perhaps not to you, but it does to others.
And if it isn’t stated then it will be up to a judicial system to make a judgement on if it was a disturbance or not. The Swedish law on public disturbance does NOT list ANY specifics and there is NO requirement that other laws also have to have been broken. It’s just that simple.
I fully understand that you do not agree with that way of handling things, but that is how it works weather you like it or not.
And what i’m talking about doesn’t have that set of definitions.
According to your personal judgement, using a predefined judicial system that fits your way of thinking. There are instances where it wouldn’t work like that. Your opinion that “that is a ridiculous way of doing it” does not take away the fact that it does exist.
Does it? So really weird lawsuits never happen in those systems? Never ever? And aren’t made into example cases?
No, you said:
Which is what i made examples against.
Again (said this so many times by now) there is nothing that requires a different law to have been broken for another to also have been broken (and again, in reference to the Swedish public disturbance law). There have been cases where people have been fined for revving their car engine on a public road causing a disturbance, still no requirement for any other legally defined dB limit to have been exceeded.
( https://www.unt.se/nyheter/motor/artikel/man-domd-for-onodigt-buller-med-bil/r9n500zj )
Similar case: ( Smällde med avgassystemet – döms för buller – Ystads Allehanda )
Similar case: ( Dömd för buller med bil - P4 Kronoberg | Sveriges Radio )
Similar case: ( Motorvarvning med sportbil slutar med böter – ”inget ofrånkoml... / Blendow Lexnova )
That’s my point though, you can call them if you think that it is something that would be against the law, it’s then up to law enforcement to judge if it’s reasonable or not to give a fine or let them go. If that law then ISN’T clearly defined it would be up to the individual to take it to court and have it tested if they are fined. The Swedish law on public disturbance ISN’T clearly defined, and there is no requirement for other laws to come into play.
In your example there can be other circumstances that come into play, if the individual takes out their gun and starts waving it around for example. It’s might still be legal for them to do in relation to any hypothetical gun laws, but they could still technically be fined for public disturbance if they are judged by law enforcement to have disturbed the people around them with their behaviour.
And you are free to think so but that STILL doesn’t take away the fact that situations like that can, and do happen. It’s very likely to be thrown out by the court either VERY quickly or at the last instance of appeal in the end, but that doesn’t really matter for my initial argument that you CAN get that fine to begin with. There is very likely examples of exactly this, someone getting fined under the public disturbance law, appealing it and almost instantly having the fine removed. That doesn’t remove the fact that the fine was issued to begin with.
That is my entire point, vague laws exist and are used. You keep saying they don’t work like that when they very much do. I’ve never said that they can’t create issues, i’ve only ever asserted that they exist and work in vague ways.
I’ve never said they couldn’t. Again i’ve only said that vague laws exist and are used in that vague way without amending them. Any opinion on that systems validity doesn’t take away it’s existence.
My main points with all of this can be summed up with this:
-
Do vaguely written law systems exist? Yes.
-
Do the vague laws have to have other defined laws broken to come into effect? No. (Note the “have to have”, as a blanket statement here, not in a hypothetical specific situation, because those will likely also exist if you dig deep enough).
-
Are those vague laws actively used and used in ways where other laws weren’t also broken? Yes.
You might think that is a bad way of operating. That, again, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I also want to make clear that i have not stated my stance on these types of law systems nor others as it doesn’t matter for the discussion, i’ve been talking purely factually without stating my personal opinions on if that is bad or good.
It seems like this particular issue could effectively be solved by extending the already in-place mechanic of awarding the closest enemy an elimation to anyone who abandons or leaves their vehicle by J’ing out short of a plane landed on the runway with no resupply or refueling timer. Regardless of the reason, you are effectively abandoning a vehicle, be it through damage, an inability to engage in combat, or to deny an elimination to someone else. And we already see such a mechanic in game already so it doesn’t involve reinventing the wheel to implement.
So basically anything including returning to an airfield and leaving the match is against the TOS then…
I see that getting punished for laws that you can’t even know about is a bread and butter of vague systems.
In this case it would imply that all those millions of vehicles that are driving on the road are guilty of public disturbance as they doing just that, driving in a normal and legal fashion.
You can’t fully understand that you can’t disturb anyone if you’re doing everything inline with the explicitly written law. The cases so far that you’ve shown focuses on exploiting the gray areas of vaguely written laws.
See above.
At least they won’t force people to go to court as they’ve had a red shirt on, which somehow got someone else disturbed.
My only fault there is that I forgot to write “in one way or another” at the end of the sentence. I already said that line before so I thought it’s granted. I’ve shown you a way how you can select them.
Revving your engine in idle doesn’t fall under a normal driving condition.
A police officer heard the noise from a distance and saw smoke from the tires.
Dude doing burnouts at a traffic light is a far cry from driving normally.
he had deliberately revved the engine loudly in a way that qualified as “unnecessary and disruptive driving."
He was charged for unnecessary driving, not public disturbance. Same could happen if someone just stops multiple times for no reason for example.
Well, police officers have to respond to that call because they need to check if that person has all valid permits for open carry and if everything is in order, they simply can’t apply any tickets as literally nothing is illegal.
You being disturbed from seeing a gun is your own problem that should be taken against the country, as it is the one that issued the open carry law. This is my whole point.
Good thing open carry laws are properly defined to a point where you have to carry a firearm in a certain fashion and position. Explicitly stated laws can’t stop winning, am I right ?
In no way I’ve ever said you’re touching your gun.
That’s also not a public disturbance, there’s a whole law about that and it’s called brandishing a firearm and it can’t be mixed up with just an open carry.
If you hold a firearm on your body in a way that’s described by the open carry law, you can’t fall under the brandishing a firearm law as the open carry one directly protects you from that.
All of that can introduce some issues to the police officer itself, as he was the one that issued a fine for someone doing nothing wrong and he created all that mess in the first place.
Me getting a fine for having a properly openly carried weapon might open up a way for me to sue the officer and the country itself. Someone being a snowflake that gets disturbed by seeing a gun is his own problem, as even the state allows guns to be carried out in public.
Seeing those cases I don’t think they work properly and need to be changed.
I’m just glad most major laws aren’t defined vaguely.
Seeing how you can be fined for driving too slowly while going 59 in a 60 area is just a clear example of why those laws are bad in the first place.
They very much do, all of your examples focused on exploiting vague laws, not defined ones.
Driving too slowly is something vaguely described.
Driving unnecessarily is something vaguely described.
Listening to music in public is something vaguely described.
Do find me a case of someone getting a fine because he did a proper open carry and one individual found it disturbing as he hates guns.
Not automatically guilty, they would on the other hand be subject to having that tested through the judicial system where surrounding circumstances are also judged.
You’re stating this as if its a universal fact, that isn’t the case. It might be the case in a lot of places and under a lot of judicial systems (as well as arguably ethically and morally) but not everywhere and for every case, that is where you don’t seem to fully understand my point.
So they exist.
Are you really sure about that? There are some really weird cases out there.
You are correct here, i wasn’t clear enough and i did mix things up, apologies for that.
Those are still examples of vague laws being used to punish people and where no other defined law was used.
Your whole point is based on a different set of premises. This: "they simply can’t apply any tickets as literally nothing is illegal. " assumes that the law can’t be applied in that case, which it can. You’re arguing from the point of view of what you think it should be, not what it is or can be. Even if your whole point is VERY reasonable for how it SHOULD be, doesn’t take away the fact that there are places where it is the opposite that is true.
There are many places where a law can be applied because another person is disturbed by what you do, even if what you do itself isn’t illegal. It doesn’t matter if you or me or anyone else things this shouldn’t be the case, it doesn’t matter how morally or ethically wrong anyone thinks that is, it doesn’t matter what other countrys laws are, it still holds true that there are places where things do work like that.
Again irrelevant weather one system is better than the other. It still exists.
As i don’t know anything on those types of laws i have nothing to apply here. i was only using your limitedly provided example to go by.
Depends on the judicial system. If such a case has never been tried it’s impossible for the officer to know it wasn’t illegal to do and thus issuing a fine is perfectly okay before an example case has been made to indicate that the act was perfectly legal. Had such a fine been issued after that example case then it’s a different thing and might cause the officer issues.
Here is an example of such a case: ( NJA 1981 s. 1010 | lagen.nu ). It went through three steps of appeals until it became an example case of what doesn’t fall under public disturbance.
Again applying different sets of laws and systems.
You are free to make that argument and have those opinions, many will likely agree, i personally don’t see the need to voice my opinion on it as it doesn’t impact the discussion nor the existence of such systems.
Exactly. So your argument so far that they don’t is to me, at this point, confusing.
Why?
That entire argument was made on the hypothetical premise that such a law was present in Sweden, which there in reality isn’t so finding any case on it at all would be impossible by definition.
Additionally, just because those types of cases likely won’t exist doesn’t mean that there aren’t other examples that fully fulfill my previously listed circumstances of vague laws being used without any other law being broken.
^ I also want to mention with open carry of firearms in Sweden:
You’re required to first get a license to even own a firearm, with recreational shooting and hunting being the only real reasons to own one, and it is highly illegal to carry a firearm in public, especially openly, so if someone saw another brandishing a firearm in public and called the police, the owner of the firearm can and would be fined alongside likely having their license revoked, so MotorolaCRO’s example doesn’t even work because the hypothetical gun owner is already committing a crime
Apologies if anything I said is incorrect, I myself am not Swedish, this is coming from research I have done into the country. Also, apologies to butt into the conversation, I just felt I should mention that
No. You RTB, landed, your free to leave the match or continue. If damaged, landed then repaired then left, still fine. They failed to shoot ya down and you made it home safely.
Though i am sure when ya landed, repaired and J out from incoming strafe, then spawn again, then J out again to avoid strafe continuously, it goes against TOS. Pretty obvious that is Griefing behavior and falls under fair play as well.
They could be punished only for those other circumstances, as just driving normally on a road isn’t a crime.
I understand you but I can’t cover the laws of dozens of countries in one go.
I stated from the start that vague laws can be easily exploited even by straight up comical reasons.
For non-clown states I’m pretty sure.
You having an issue with red shirts implies you have some underlying medical conditions more than anything else to be honest.
I do support people being punished for burnouts, but ways that you can be driving unnecessarily should be defined clearly. In this case the law has failed the community and it was the judge that saved the day by interpreting that correctly, which doesn’t have to happen with all judges.
You don’t really need to be familiar, as I just used it as an example of how certain laws are intertwined and protect individuals from other laws. All of this is mostly common in the US of course, as they like their guns.
I also used it thinking that it’s a fairly easy set of laws to figure out.
It’s impossible to issue a fine for something that doesn’t exist, as you’d be making things up at that point.
Vague laws do, not explicitly stated ones.
No need for it to be in Sweden.
This discussion pretty much revolved around that resident/bike case in which you argued that vehicles driving around in a normal and legal fashion can be convicted of public disturbance just because of someone’s thoughts and feelings.
I’ll have to ask, do you think that laws can be accepted if they state/imply something that is considered illegal by an another law ?
It would be like a country doesn’t know it’s own laws, which is completely absurd. I’ll give you a few examples.
Why would you write a law allowing cars to produce up to 90dB of noise if you think that level of noise is enough to cause public disturbance ?
Why would you write a law that allows open carry of a firearm in public if that country doesn’t even allow people to own a firearm ?
It’s a ridiculous fallacy.
Some laws simply have to fulfill some prerequisites in order to be valid. This is why I told you that vehicles driving around in a regular and legal fashion can’t be held accountable for public disturbance by their noise levels alone, as the law stating those legal noise values made sure those values don’t trigger any public disturbance.
I hope this makes my point more clear.
@CorruptShadows9-live
I already assumed Sweden isn’t a gun friendly country, so I pretty much used it as an example because I also assumed the guy lives in Sweden.
Me being punished for doing an action which is explicitly stated to be legal makes absolutely no sense to the point I don’t believe what you say is true. I’d like to have some examples.
You’re basically implying that thoughts and feelings of a random person are above the law that’s very clearly and concisely written.