• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    At no point did the article dispute that the man knew his license was suspended and that he therefore knew he was driving on a suspended license. Hell, his case was about him having done this before.

    Don’t video call into your driving on a suspended license court case while driving on a suspended license.

    • Bell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Are you defending the botched legal process and suggesting that it deserves more respect than the man who is in fact in the right? That we should continue to obey even when it’s wrong?

      The man also knew that his license was not in fact suspended in any legitimate way. If I was the victim of failed bureaucracy for months I would ignore it too.

      • cdf12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Ignore it sure, but maybe not as you zoom into a court appearance

        • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Might help if you try to understand where people are coming from. This guy was stupid for video calling while driving, period. That said, if my license was supposed to be reinstated two years prior, I think I’d be driving too (while being very careful about avoiding any complications with law enforcement). Comparing that to sovcit stuff isn’t reasonable.

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      cake
      OPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t think the article tried to exonerate him by any means.