Not in practice in most the places it happens. Much of forested Guyana and Brazil is wide open to ANYONE, no law enforcement and no immigration enforcement.
It reduces the amount of time you are in the residential area meaning there is less opportunity to even contact a pedestrian or cyclist. At the extreme in some areas if you could go the speed of light you could essentially pick a time when no pedestrian could even possibly enter the road while you are on it.
Weed is illegal everywhere in the US by federal law and defacto illegal by state law in most 'legal' states if you are anything other than a homeless bum, as driving a car with metabolites or owning a gun (or just living in same house) as a user are both crimes.
Gun control has gotten looser on state level. Federal seems to get worse every couple decades. It started with the NFA, then the GCA, then the hughes amendment. Finally everything became a felony so they just disarmed undesirable people and races that way.
Except for the things that most affect common Americans. Like how most housing has onerous zoning and code requirements, banking has kyc/AML and reporting, OSHA controls our work conditions, kids families can be investigated for practicing age appropriate child independence, and family law now often essentially makes the higher earner a slave on a short leash to jail if their spouse divorces them.
Ours removed them after the guys who made and installed the cameras were caught ducking the process servers from triggering their own cameras and all involved were found to be hypocrites.
Might work where you live. A huge portion of my city has foreign plates or straight up illegals driving, they don't give a fuck about a camera and can, will, and have totaled my car for playing the safe stop fuck fuck game. Nope nope nope if the intersection is clear I'm not getting my car totalled again by the tailgater behind me just to satisfy the law.
I passed through a town in Ohio and was cited to pay or appear to a mayors court. I looked it up and it was literally the mayor's court, and he was required to have something like one day of training.
Immediately decided they'd probably just arrest me on some bullshit upon arriving and if not in a town of 100 or whatever there was no use arguing so I just paid.
The map of the town was like one Podunk neighborhood plus like a 100 ft stretch of state highway gerrymandered in for ticket revenue.
Basically all money in circulation is prior proceeds of crime (and also will soon be going back to crime) and all reasonable lukewarm IQ people know this. It's such a chicken shit law.
He is actually wrong, that isn't what the law says. The reason its illegal in this instance is because their transactions related to carrying on a crime (they used user donations to pay for maintaining the site). Per the indictment they are charged under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) which states:
> (a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—
> (A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;
You can read the entire code but it criminalizes 2 main categories of conduct. Knowingly using the proceeds of a crime to promote the carrying on of a crime. And knowingly using the proceeds of a crime in a transaction that attempts to conceal the source of the proceeds. So even if you assume all money is the proceeds of a crime this law would not apply to you as long as you don't use it to commit any crimes yourself and you don't attempt to hide where you got it.
You're correct, but I think most reasonable people would find that statute wildly overbroad. By this logic you could charge a weed dealer who buys a bus ticket from home to downtown (where they habitually sell weed) with money laundering. Hell, you could charge them for missing the bus.
> You can read the entire code but it criminalizes 2 main categories of conduct. Knowingly using the proceeds of a crime to promote the carrying on of a crime. And knowingly using the proceeds of a crime in a transaction that attempts to conceal the source of the proceeds. So even if you assume all money is the proceeds of a crime this law would not apply to you as long as you don't use it to commit any crimes yourself and you don't attempt to hide where you got it.
I agree that the way I explained the law was less than completely accurate. But I was talking about money laundering charges as add-on charges. Your "as long as you don't use it to commit any crimes yourself" is unlikely to apply to a defendant who is getting a money laundering charge as an add-on rather than the sole charge.
Theoretically, you might commit a crime, and draw proceeds from that crime, and never use those proceeds in any way to further the commission of the underlying crime – but in practice that doesn't seem particularly likely. An enterprising prosecutor is going to come up with some explanation of how you used the proceeds to further the criminal enterprise which produced them – e.g. you used the money to buy a car, and then you went on a crime-related car trip; you used the money to buy a phone, and then you made a crime-related phone call; etc – and once the jury is convinced you are guilty of the underlying criminal conduct, they'll be primed to believe the prosecutor's explanation. Especially since the law doesn't require the prosecution to prove that you actually used the proceeds to further the criminal enterprise, only that you intended to.
It's absolute bullshit because the crime (copyright violation) had not been proven at the time of the transaction, and without that, how does one know they're violating copyright vs. exercising fair use rights?
Which is what the articles of confederation were moving closer towards, decentralized affiliated states. It was a move closer towards anarchism but ironically many anarchists would have a meltdown if we suggested going from what we've now to that.
