Every lawyer reading this is cringing.
RT @[email protected]:
I also don't have much experience with traffic court, but I think most human lawyers would agree that it's a bad strategic move to subpoena opposing witnesses when you'd prefer they don't show up.
The AI defense is off to a great start...
@tjmcintyre @cstross Primus; you don’t need to subpoena a cop to show up at traffic court, because attendance at traffic court means the cop gets to hang around indoors chatting with their cop buddies all morning & there is nothing a cop likes better. They’ll be there.
Secundus, unless you have actual solid cast-iron proof that you didn’t commit the offense, then the judge is going to listen to the cop. And if you have actual solid cast-iron proof, you don’t need HAL9000 whispering in your ear.
I have gotten out of one ticket by going to traffic court (on the advice of a friend) and the officer didn't show, so the charges were dismissed. I don't know if this is common or if it only works in some jurisdictions.
Doesn't mean that the Eliza-bot in your ear is a good idea by any means!
@strangebirds I suspect it varies according to circumstances and locations. If you’re somewhere like NYC, where they have so many cops they don’t know what to do with them all, the cop will probably show; if the department is more thinly stretched, maybe not.
The only time I’ve had to appear — for the heinous crime of allegedly cycling slowly through a red light on a share bike — the cop was there. Can’t allow serious crimes like that to go unpunished.
If the AI told a defendant to subpoena the cop, it means. you are now being advised by prosecutorial Skynet.
TJ McIntyre
Angus McIntyre
ethan
Kaleissin
Filerelatedperson
mazianni