As for the sodomy law, before it was ruled unconstitutional (and therefore void), it was enforceable and people were convicted of it. See, e.g., https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/texas.htm
The fact that it has been voided since is something every prosecutor knows, and so they won’t even try to indict anyone for it. Getting the law off the books is a formality at this point.
Except I never said that no one had ever been convicted. I'm saying even though the law still is on paper, it doesn't mean someone can be successfully convicted of performing a 'fact pattern' that looks like it might violate the letter of the law. For someone formally trained in law you have a shockingly poor attention to detail or even accurately recalling facts.
> or you risk being removed from HN.
Is this some kind of threat? You have a power play fetish too eh? What would I _ever_ do without non-practicing lawyers arguing with me about the risk of me going to jail for some Texas penal code offense they can't even find a conviction for under one of the most common socially frowned upon 'fact patterns' known to man (Texan drunk at the wheel on his fenced-in property). But hey man, however you keep your razor sharp I guess.
--------------------
Other snips from Otterley's attacks on my character:
'Worse, you are a hypocrite: You gladly take full advantage of the protections the law affords you, while expressing disdain for the protections and fairness-guiding that the law affords others.'
'I think we've reached the end of this conversation with a clear understanding of the type of person you are. This is a garden-variety description of egotistical selfishness'
'Good for you. I bet you have a Black friend, too.'
Mr. Otterley: YOU are the hypocrite.
---------------------
Oh and another one for my friend Otterley from our old conversation, in case we don't meet each other under this username again:
'But I really thank you for the laughs. Maybe the next time I spark up a blunt, I'll stop and think to myself "lawless egotistical selfishness" and think back about dear Otterley'
I know what the difference is between indictment and conviction, stop trying to act like this holier than thou. The 'fact pattern' of drunk driving on private property isn't a rare pattern, it shouldn't be difficult to dig up a conviction under that statute if it has been succesful.
>Reckless endangerment does not require you actually hit anyone. Where did you get that from?
No shit. I got it from my example, where the driver didn't hit anyone. That's what we were both talking about, a drunk driver on their own private property behind a fence. When did I ever say they hit someone? In my example they didn't, which is why I asked for a case where they didn't.
The sodomy law is an example of how overzealous prosecutors can prosecute "a ham sandwich" on whatever they want but it means jack in terms of whether they can actually convict someone, even if the exact letter of the law suggests they can.
>A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases.
Sadly many prosecutors care more about convictions (or just dragging someone through the system, conviction or not) than any of those. And some care more about convictions than even justice, to the point they will imprison people for victimless crimes. A bad prosecutor is one of the most dangerous and despised members of society.