Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

R3con wrote:Lol chapterhouse threads get to go on forever, and this gets booted to off topic?

I'm glad someone posted this in news, for this is IMPORTANT news to those of us in Michigan.

THANK YOU I MADE THAT POINT TOO, OP right here. This is a hard one as all of us world wide have felt this economic sting. Times are tough everywhere, and believe me I went from making just shy of $100K a year last July to now less then $30k. Believe me I have only gotten one unemployment payment since, and my company isn't at the point yet where I can draw a monthly salary (Almost thought just not yet). I have not once though ever considered stealing from one of my clients to pay my bills as that is a slippery slope down hill as not even the immoral side of it, but also the misstrust people would have for me from then on. Heck my minpin needs a surgery so what am I doing, selling one of my cars as I don't need two in my house hold, and I can pay off so many debts with that money and get him what he needs to keep him alive (I love my doggies ). I have in the past sold off all of my models and even my Pre-Heresy army built by dave taylor, why because that was what needed to be done.

I understand where people are comming from on this but I feel I must in the end stand firm that the law is the law and to let somone slide even though they have acknowledged fault, is still a bad idea. He has started restitutions, and needs to keep going so I would say once his debt is paid off 2 years in a federal pen minimum, or do 2 years of community service. I read an artile in Time or something , can't remember, years ago a judge instead of sending a man to jail for vehiclular manslaughter, sentinced him to write an apology letter daily to the family of the victim. After two years the guy killed himself BUT STILL!

While it's an interesting news story, it's got basically nothing to do with the miniatures/gaming hobby as a whole.

The only thing that ties the story to this site is simply that it was a gaming store.

Kanluwen wrote:While it's an interesting news story, it's got basically nothing to do with the miniatures/gaming hobby as a whole.

The only thing that ties the story to this site is simply that it was a gaming store.

Totally disagree with you there, because their is little difference then between this and when chapterhouse went for 17 pages. Their company is small and overall if they "hypathetically" went out of business would not effect the hobby as a whole. In general the short of a mass ban on miniatures gamming really nothing effects the hobby as a whole. I think many of you seem to feel the hobby is all things GW when in fact GW is still an Infant compared to how this all started around historicals.

Well if i didn't know it was my credit card i would not have done that - best way to get out of anything

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it worse to steal from a rich man or a poor man?

Who cares? You stole. You're vermin and have abrogated your right to exist. To the fleshpits with you!

If you can't do the crime don't do the time.

You've been overdoing the Haggis again, haven't you.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:For those saying that "well he messed up but that's ok because he's paying it back" you are just wrong on so many level. 200k is Grand Larson and I am a firm believer if you break the law no matter what you deserve to be punished to the extent. That is almost as good as saying the former founder of the crips is a good person because even though he killed people he felt remorse and wrote childrens books. A man accepts the punishment he is dealt for his crimes, but to write it off sets a very bad presidence. Honestly that reviles me that you even think it's ok and says a lot because this man still broke the law. Not all business owners break the law, I report all of my taxes I collect to the state monthly like they like. I tell my tax attorney every dime I make for the simple fact that sooner or later if you break the law you will get caught and then the punishment is far worse. The easiest way to not get in trouble is to simply not do anything wrong. Too many people say that's impossible but it's not. Heck I was one of a few soldiers in my platoon during my career who didn't get brought up on judicial punishment for the simple fact that the few times I did mess up I owned up to it right away, and though I may have had a strong coat of sweat on me after a few hours on punishment I never had my rank, or money taken away or most importantly my honor and dignitiy.

Indeed. A petty criminal can get sent to jail for life for robbing three people, but this loser gets sympathy? No I say! Give him...THE SHRUBBERY!

Bull. Very rarely do "petty criminals get sent to jail for life" just because they robbed three people. There's more to the circumstances than that, usually a gun involved and a prior record or jailtime for more serious offenses.

But let's not let that get in the way of Knee-Jerk Reaction Time!

Three Strikes and life. Its not just a job, its a way of life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:There's some very strange ideas about law and order floating around in this thread.

He committed a serious crime, because $200,000 is a lot of money. But it appears to be an isolated incident, and he is making considerable efforts to repay the money. This means a significantly reduced sentence, possibly even house arrest, is probably the best way to go, but really knowing the best circumstance would require actually being in the court room.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I disagree. He committed theft of value more than the homes of many people.

You can get a house for less than $200K? Outside of Detroit?

Yep. not all of us live in the hell of Los Angeles.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:For those saying that "well he messed up but that's ok because he's paying it back" you are just wrong on so many level. 200k is Grand Larson and I am a firm believer if you break the law no matter what you deserve to be punished to the extent. That is almost as good as saying the former founder of the crips is a good person because even though he killed people he felt remorse and wrote childrens books. A man accepts the punishment he is dealt for his crimes, but to write it off sets a very bad presidence. Honestly that reviles me that you even think it's ok and says a lot because this man still broke the law. Not all business owners break the law, I report all of my taxes I collect to the state monthly like they like. I tell my tax attorney every dime I make for the simple fact that sooner or later if you break the law you will get caught and then the punishment is far worse. The easiest way to not get in trouble is to simply not do anything wrong. Too many people say that's impossible but it's not. Heck I was one of a few soldiers in my platoon during my career who didn't get brought up on judicial punishment for the simple fact that the few times I did mess up I owned up to it right away, and though I may have had a strong coat of sweat on me after a few hours on punishment I never had my rank, or money taken away or most importantly my honor and dignitiy.

Indeed. A petty criminal can get sent to jail for life for robbing three people, but this loser gets sympathy? No I say! Give him...THE SHRUBBERY!

Bull. Very rarely do "petty criminals get sent to jail for life" just because they robbed three people. There's more to the circumstances than that, usually a gun involved and a prior record or jailtime for more serious offenses.

But let's not let that get in the way of Knee-Jerk Reaction Time!

Three Strikes and life. Its not just a job, its a way of life.

So you mean exactly what I said about "more to the circumstances" and "a prior record or jailtime for more serious offenses"?

Glorious!

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it worse to steal from a rich man or a poor man?

Who cares? You stole. You're vermin and have abrogated your right to exist. To the fleshpits with you!

If you can't do the crime don't do the time.

You've been overdoing the Haggis again, haven't you.

No haggis can hold me!
basically its social equity and the same legal arguyment between crime laws about the criminalization of crack vs. powder cocaine. For many years powder cocaine crimes garnered substantially less jail time than crack despite being the same thing. The argument was that crack addicts were more dangerous and prone to do more violent crimes. The fact that rich whites typically were busted while poor minorities were busted for crack had nothing to do with it...
All you blleeding hearts should actually be on my side here (fairness in sentencing).

If you do a crime it should be equivalent. The rest is pussy bs nonsense. As the immortal bard: Free Huey!

Actually, you're not talking about "fairness in sentencing" for this case.

What you're talking about is just "tarring with the same brush".

No one is disputing that he committed a crime. Nor are they disputing that he should be punished for committing said crime.

But, there are mitigating circumstances here; namely that he's been actively providing recompense.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, you're not talking about "fairness in sentencing" for this case.

What you're talking about is just "tarring with the same brush".

No one is disputing that he committed a crime. Nor are they disputing that he should be punished for committing said crime.

But, there are mitigating circumstances here; namely that he's been actively providing recompense.

bs there are no mitigating circumstances here. He's not poor stealing bread for his kid. He did the crime. He got caught. feth him just like you would feth any other petty criminal. Anything else is an injustice towards the poor you incarcerate who really do have miitgating circimstances. As the immortal bard once said: "And yet if I were to have that man killed, I would be the bad guy?"

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, you're not talking about "fairness in sentencing" for this case.

What you're talking about is just "tarring with the same brush".

No one is disputing that he committed a crime. Nor are they disputing that he should be punished for committing said crime.

But, there are mitigating circumstances here; namely that he's been actively providing recompense.

bs there are no mitigating circumstances here. He's not poor stealing bread for his kid. He did the crime. He got caught. feth him just like you would feth any other petty criminal. Anything else is an injustice towards the poor you incarcerate who really do have mitigating circumstances.

Did I say he's "poor stealing bread for his kid"?
No, I really didn't.

And that's a ridiculous comparison anyways, because most of the "poor you incarcerate" don't have anywhere near the circumstances we've got here(upstanding member of the community, white collar crime, owns a well-known business, etc).

Or are you saying that a junky who knocks over a liquor store for cash to get his next fix deserves the same kind of mitigating circumstances as this guy?

Kanluwen wrote:While it's an interesting news story, it's got basically nothing to do with the miniatures/gaming hobby as a whole.

The only thing that ties the story to this site is simply that it was a gaming store.

How about the ties that some of us shop in the area? And would like to know that the hobby store owner is a repeat offender when it comes to stealing money from peoples credit cards?

Ya kinda a big story for those of us who buy minitures/gaming supplies.

R3con wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:While it's an interesting news story, it's got basically nothing to do with the miniatures/gaming hobby as a whole.

The only thing that ties the story to this site is simply that it was a gaming store.

How about the ties that some of us shop in the area? And would like to know that the hobby store owner is a repeat offender when it comes to stealing money from peoples credit cards?

Ya kinda a big story for those of us who buy miniatures/gaming supplies.

Except it's not for the rest of us.

Sorry, guess you'll have to follow your local news?

Except Kanluwen for me, who lives on the other side of the world but shops there from time to time and is one of the owners of this site. It's exactly the kind of thing I want to see, especially as it affects me personally as well as thousands of other gamers.

@Kan: I am guessing that you are a pure fantasy gammer and am probably right. This company is a big one and despite your narrow minded view on this it is actually news as this is a big deal for many owners and hit's close to home. If a notable mainstream retail company will steal from it's clients what's to keep people from thinking that the rest of us will. Your point has been made that you don't think it is news but please stop trolling as that is what you are doing. We are discussing the validity of this persons actions, and somone has already moved this to OT even though it is news so all you are doing is trolling a mute point.

HERE HERE LEGO!!! MOVE US BACK!!!!MOVE US BACK!!!!

***Strawman, you're saying there are mitigating circumstances. There isn't in this case. He got caught and was forced to repay the proceeds from his nefarious dealings. Big fething whup.

And that's a ridiculous comparison anyways, because most of the "poor you incarcerate" don't have anywhere near the circumstances we've got here(upstanding member of the community, white collar crime, owns a well-known business, etc).

***Yes these are the typical excuses to get white collar criminals off. I've heard them over and over again. Some investment banker plunders a company and he goals to jail for 2 years. The local hooligan steals a radio and gets five years. Its an excuse to cover and I call bs.

I thought that the whole point of law was that it should be applied fairly and even-handedly? yes, you may feel sorry for the circumstances of this guy and yes, he might be a little more photogenic than a crack-head bag thief but the crimes are the same and should be judged as such. Once you start judging criminal cases based on subjective feelings about someone rather than the facts of the case then its a pretty slippery slope.

legoburner wrote:Except Kanluwen for me, who lives on the other side of the world but shops there from time to time and is one of the owners of this site. It's exactly the kind of thing I want to see, especially as it affects me personally as well as thousands of other gamers.

Then maybe it should have been moved to Dakka Discussions rather than here?

It's, personally, where I would have moved it to and where I would keep those fething Chapterhouse "legality" threads at rather than having them clog up News & Rumours.

The whole thing about it being "news & rumours" is we see things get kicked out of N&R all the time for being remotely like this, because they directly don't concern news or rumours related to miniatures themselves. All this really has to do with miniatures is it's a webstore that sells them and the owner used Peter Jackson's credit card information.

Empchild wrote:@Kan: I am guessing that you are a pure fantasy gamer and am probably right.

What does this have to do with anything?

This company is a big one and despite your narrow minded view on this it is actually news as this is a big deal for many owners and hits close to home.

"A big deal for many owners and hits close to home" for who? Webstore owners?
Then maybe you should have actually presented it like that, rather than just posting a link to the news article and giving it a wishywashy, overly dramatic title.

If a notable mainstream retail company will steal from its clients, what's to keep people from thinking that the rest of us will.

Bwuh? So you know he's stolen from multiple clients? Where's that at in the article?

Your point has been made that you don't think it is news but please stop trolling as that is what you are doing.

I've said once or bloody twice that I don't "think it is news"(which is NOT what I actually said. I said that it doesn't have enough tying it really to the wargaming hobby as a whole to justify it being in news & rumours. It's just like the Chapterhouse legal threads or anything of that nature. They really have no bloody business being in N&R, because it's a tenuous connection at best.)

We are discussing the validity of this persons actions, and someone has already moved this to OT even though it is news so all you are doing is trolling a moot point.

No, we're really not "discussing the validity of this person's actions".
It, quite frankly, seems to me that you're using this as a chance to smear a competitor.

Frazzled wrote:***Strawman, you're saying there are mitigating circumstances. There isn't in this case. He got caught and was forced to repay the proceeds from his nefarious dealings. Big fething whup.

He was repaying prior to "being caught", according to the article. That's a mitigating circumstance to me.

Frazzled wrote:
***Yes these are the typical excuses to get white collar criminals off. I've heard them over and over again. Some investment banker plunders a company and he goals to jail for 2 years. The local hooligan steals a radio and gets five years. Its an excuse to cover and I call bs.

That is a way different situation and you damned well know it. This guy didn't "plunder a company". He didn't set up a Cayman Islands tax shelter and funnel away his employees' retirement or healthcare funds.

Also: I don't know of any cases where a "local hooligan steals a radio and gets five years" that have happened since the 70s. Cite some. At most, they have to repay the damages or you'll have cases where they've been stealing a crapton of stuff and they get the jailtime based upon the fact that they committed the same crime repeatedly.

Filbert wrote:I thought that the whole point of law was that it should be applied fairly and even-handedly? yes, you may feel sorry for the circumstances of this guy and yes, he might be a little more photogenic than a crack-head bag thief but the crimes are the same and should be judged as such. Once you start judging criminal cases based on subjective feelings about someone rather than the facts of the case then its a pretty slippery slope.

There's no way to have laws applied "fairly and even-handedly" without going absurdly over the top in some cases.
That's why we do things like, y'know, look at the facts of the case when determining sentencing.

If a guy has no prior record of drunk driving, but was stopped going to the hospital for his wife giving birth to their first child and he had a few drinks prior--it's likely he won't even be given a ticket, the officer will just take him to the hospital themselves.

That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

Kanluwen wrote:

That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I don't live in a country like yours Kan. I stand to be corrected but AFAIK, in the UK, the judge is not allowed to disclose past convictions or court appearances to a jury until after they have returned a verdict. The traditional statue of justice is oft depicted wearing a blindfold, because the law is supposed to be applied the same regardless of a persons financial or societal standing.

Kanluwen wrote:That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I do not mean to flame but this is an absurd statement. If you like discretionary punishment you should move to a country like China or North Korea or any other totalitarian crap hole where the wealthy and well connected really do get away with anything. The joy of living in a nation like ours is that we DON’T have discretionary punishment. All men are equal before the law in our country. If an otherwise upstanding citizen murders he should be put away just the same as someone who has done nothing with their life. The punishment is for murder, not murder + being a lazy human being or murder – being well known in the community. It’s the same with theft in my opinion.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I do not mean to flame but this is an absurd statement. If you like discretionary punishment you should move to a country like China or North Korea or any other totalitarian crap hole where the wealthy and well connected really do get away with anything. The joy of living in a nation like ours is that we DON’T have discretionary punishment. All men are equal before the law in our country. If an otherwise upstanding citizen murders he should be put away just the same as someone who has done nothing with their life. The punishment is for murder, not murder + being a lazy human being or murder – being well known in the community. It’s the same with theft in my opinion.

Sorry, you know of how many cases where an upstanding citizen has committed murder and actually gotten away with it?
I can really only think of OJ Simpson.

And by the by: You have no clue what the feth you're talking about. "Discretionary punishment" is alive and well here in the US. You know how every single potsmoking or underage drinking teenager isn't in prison?

Yeah. That's "discretionary punishment".

Also: I love that you're really comparing murder to credit card fraud. Overreaction much?

Filbert wrote:I don't live in a country like yours Kan. I stand to be corrected but AFAIK, in the UK, the judge is not allowed to disclose past convictions or court appearances to a jury until after they have returned a verdict. The traditional statue of justice is oft depicted wearing a blindfold, because the law is supposed to be applied the same regardless of a persons financial or societal standing.

You're misunderstanding the definition of discretionary punishment, Filbert.
Choosing whether or not to even enforce and/or punish certain crimes(such as the potsmoking example I used above) is the "discretionary" part of "discretionary punishment".

Kanluwen wrote:

Filbert wrote:I don't live in a country like yours Kan. I stand to be corrected but AFAIK, in the UK, the judge is not allowed to disclose past convictions or court appearances to a jury until after they have returned a verdict. The traditional statue of justice is oft depicted wearing a blindfold, because the law is supposed to be applied the same regardless of a persons financial or societal standing.

You're misunderstanding the definition of discretionary punishment, Filbert.
Choosing whether or not to even enforce and/or punish certain crimes(such as the potsmoking example I used above) is the "discretionary" part of "discretionary punishment".

Errr, no it isn't. Again, going by what happens here in the UK, cannabis is classed as lower category of drug and can therefore be dealt with a caution unless the person has had 3 such cautions. There is nothing discretionary about it; it isn't the copper being a good bloke and letting you off with a warning - it's the law that advises him to do so. Likewise if I get charged with carrying heroin with intent to supply - I should expect a custodial sentence regardless of whether it is my first ever conviction or I am a career drug smuggler.

See, we don't have "cautions" here.
You're either given a summons for a court appearance for sentencing(which will rarely happen with cannabis, excepting circumstances like reckless driving or if you're so visibly stoned and in public that the cops can't ignore it) or you're not.

If a notable mainstream retail company will steal from its clients, what's to keep people from thinking that the rest of us will
Bwuh? So you know he's stolen from multiple clients? Where's that at in the article?

Nice try on this Kan but that is missreading what I said. I have not stated he has stolen from multiple clients but I am refering to the clients as a whole instead of singular. Since I am saying that this puts misstrust with all of the retailer/ clients out there in that a client may not have faith that I or any other retailer would not steal from them. I am saying my CLIENTS (damn english dictionary) as a whole may now have less faith. Again please STOP TROLLING because honestly you do it in almost every thread you are in.

We are discussing the validity of this persons actions, and someone has already moved this to OT even though it is news so all you are doing is trolling a moot point
No, we're really not "discussing the validity of this person's actions".
It, quite frankly, seems to me that you're using this as a chance to smear a competitor.

Frankly, that is an offensive statement that you can only make over the internet as you would never claim that to my face. I am a straight forward business man with all of my competitors and clients (theirs that english dictionary again). I stay honest because that actually brings people back. My clients (whoops again) know that I would not lie to them or miss abuse them and their money. All of my prices are below retail, and if their is ever a problem they know I will fix it fast, and if need be apologize personally, and when it mandates it throw in some free goodies. My competitors know that I have not now nor will I ever participate in a smear campaign, ESPECIALLY at a store I love. I grew up in that part of the country, and thanks to my uncle know personally many of the past and present store owners. I have shopped with them even when I didn't need too just out of curitousy and respect for their businesses. I am actually pissed that a little troll such as yourself would even concieve a statement like that.


BTW since you are sooooooo familiar with all of the nations local laws hrmmm how many ounces is someone allowed here in mass to have on them before it is no longer a missdermeaner hmmmmm?

Oooh, this thread got fun quickly.

I'm going to get popcorn, be right back.

Kanluwen wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I do not mean to flame but this is an absurd statement. If you like discretionary punishment you should move to a country like China or North Korea or any other totalitarian crap hole where the wealthy and well connected really do get away with anything. The joy of living in a nation like ours is that we DON’T have discretionary punishment. All men are equal before the law in our country. If an otherwise upstanding citizen murders he should be put away just the same as someone who has done nothing with their life. The punishment is for murder, not murder + being a lazy human being or murder – being well known in the community. It’s the same with theft in my opinion.

Sorry, you know of how many cases where an upstanding citizen has committed murder and actually gotten away with it?
I can really only think of OJ Simpson.

And by the by: You have no clue what the feth you're talking about. "Discretionary punishment" is alive and well here in the US. You know how every single potsmoking or underage drinking teenager isn't in prison?

Yeah. That's "discretionary punishment".

Also: I love that you're really comparing murder to credit card fraud. Overreaction much?

Whoa, calm down now.

So if you like discretionary punishment are you advocating more verdicts like OJ Simpson? Are you saying its ok that a white kid in college gets a slap on the wrist for drug possession while a minority gets slammed with intent to distribute? I never said that stuff doesn't happen, but it shouldn't happen. And it happens a lot less here than a lot of other places in the world.

A murder is like theft in the sense that they are both crimes, and they both deserve punishment regardless of someone’s overall circumstance. He should he charged with theft, not theft - being a good citizen. He stopped being a good citizen when he decided to steal.

I spent all afternoon yesterday and awhile this morning searching everywhere I knew to get the actual court documentation and I can't find anything!

Until we see the actual documents, we only have the media reports to go on, so who knows what "really" happened.

Sorry, I was worked up? Huh. Must be an unconscious Internet thing.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:So if you like discretionary punishment are you advocating more verdicts like OJ Simpson?

That's not discretionary punishment. That's the result of a jury trial. He had an absurdly good lawyer and the police mishandled the case. It happens far more than you're led to believe.

Are you saying its ok that a white kid in college gets a slap on the wrist for drug possession while a minority gets slammed with intent to distribute?

Find me a case where a white kid in college got a "slap on the wrist for drug possession" while a minority got slammed with intent to distribute when both carried the same amount of drugs on their persons.
That's what affects intent to distribute v. simple possession.
Hrmh. What does that fit under...
I think it fits under some umbrella...don't they call things like that "the facts of the case"?

A murder is like theft in the sense that they are both crimes, and they both deserve punishment regardless of someone’s overall circumstance. He should he charged with theft, not theft - being a good citizen. He stopped being a good citizen when he decided to steal.

Except this wasn't technically "theft".

It was credit card fraud, which is a relatively new form of "theft" and in some people's eyes(including some law enforcement agencies, at least in my personal experience of having to have dealt with actually being the victim of credit card fraud) considered to be a victimless crime due to the credit card company/banks being the one taking the hit and not the individual whose information you used to make the purchases.

Kanluwen wrote:Except this wasn't technically "theft".

It was credit card fraud, which is a relatively new form of "theft" and in some people's eyes(including some law enforcement agencies, at least in my personal experience of having to have dealt with actually being the victim of credit card fraud) considered to be a victimless crime due to the credit card company/banks being the one taking the hit and not the individual whose information you used to make the purchases.

So is robbing a bank also victimless?

Discretionary punishment in the sense that “this person does this in their normal life so we are going to ease up the punishment” is wrong. It punishes other people for not doing those same things with their life. If not being a prominent business owner is wrong then make it a crime. If it isn’t wrong then don’t penalize me relative to a prominent business when we commit the same crime.

Kanluwen wrote:See, we don't have "cautions" here.
You're either given a summons for a court appearance for sentencing(which will rarely happen with cannabis, excepting circumstances like reckless driving or if you're so visibly stoned and in public that the cops can't ignore it) or you're not.

For some crimes we do have Warnings, though, which are similar idea to Cautions. I can't think of any states or municipalities which have them for drug offenses, but they're certainly an option some places for some motor vehicle violations. Yes, sometimes the cop just gives you a verbal warning and there's no consequence; but some departments have written warnings which go on your record and which another officer will see and take into account if you get stopped again for the same thing. I got one of these once for a brake light being out- the terms were (IIRC, it was over ten years ago) that I had 48hrs to get it fixed; if I got pulled over again in my town for the same thing after that, I'd get a fine.