Ignorance Of The Law

[DebateChallenge]

What did happen with this case, and how was it disposed of?

From what I do know of the case, without getting too much into detail, the guy spent the night in jail. What followed was a nightmare journey through the criminal justice system where he was slapped with a felony. He was able to get it pled down to a misdemeanor but that was only because he had such a clean record to begin with.

 

[bluesmoke]

51 is often a consideration, because DC is often separate.

Yeah. But that wasn't what I wuz thinkin'. I don't know whut I wuz thinkin'. DC and PR?

 

[Lursa]

Yes, it is fair.

Largely due to a lot of stuff being common sense. And if you aren't a jerk or one of those sovereign citizen morons, depending on the infraction and you don't have any priors, the police will likely tell you the law and send you on your way without doing anything to you.

Say though, that you are traveling with a firearm or MJ with prescrip in the state you reside, it IS on YOU to know the laws of the areas you will be traveling through and to. You already know these items are hot-topics already and each state has different laws. SO, to claim ignorance to me is just plain stupid...or again, you happen to be a jerk or sovereign citizen moron looking to cause a problem for local law enforcement.

It's interesting...this post just strikes me as out-of-proportionally hostile, with odd expectations for at least a small segment of Americans.

My goodness!

 

[Lursa]

D.C. is not a state, its a district.

Didnt say it was.

It's a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress, and the District is not a part of any state. It has limited local rule and is governed by Congress, rather than state-level legislatures.

:roll:

 

[joko104]

Should a person get in trouble for breaking the law if they don't know better? Ignorance of the law will not get you off the hook, so we're told, but is that fair? What if a person honestly doesn't know better?

That was the justification for no charges against Hilary Clinton. "I didn't know it was wrong" - with the government having to prove your motive specifically was to commit a criminal act - or you can not be prosecuted as the "Comey" defense. Every lawyer in the country should use it.

For example, unless the police could prove:
1. You knew the speed limit dropped in a construction zone
2. You were deliberately speeding and
3. The reason you were speeding is specifically because you wanted to break traffic laws

under the Comey defense you can not be written a ticket and prosecuted even if you were doing 150 mph in a 20 mph school zone and ran over half a dozen children UNLESS the government can prove your motive was to break traffic laws for the purpose of breaking traffic laws.

The "Comey Rule" as former director of the FBI is that unless the government can prove your motive for breaking any law is because you WANTED to break laws you can not be prosecuted.

Another example would be shooting someone. Unless the government can PROVE your motive was specifically because you wanted to commit the crime of murder for the sake of committing that crime, you can not be prosecuted. A person can not be prosecuted for murder unless it can be also prove the motive wasn't just murder, but specifically also to commit criminal offenses because it is a criminal offense. If you committed murder only for the sake of murder, you can not be prosecuted under the Comey Rule Of Law - that virtually all Democrats agree with.

So it is MORE than not knowing the law. You have to have broken the law specifically because you wanted to commit crimes for the sake of committing crimes.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I will give another example. This was also in NJ. A martial arts student was driving home and he accidentally cut off a pickup truck. The pickup truck started following him and when he was a couple blocks from his house its still following him. He decides he doesn't want the driver to know where he lives so he pulls over. The pickup truck pulls up behind him, this big guy gets out and comes running at him. The martial arts student sidesteps him, knees him in the stomach and hits him in the mouth with a ridge hand and knocks some of his teeth out.

As it turns out, the martial arts student gets in big trouble. He is slapped with a felony, he has to make two court appearances, he gets fined, sued, has to pay for the guy's teeth and would've been looking at prison time had he not had a lawyer in his second court appearance. Since he had a lawyer in his second court appearance he was able to avoid prison time but still has to pay a fine, he's still sued, and he still has to pay for the guy's teeth. He also still has a felony record which means that he loses some of his rights as an American citizen and he might never be able to hold down a job. He thought he was in the right. It was the driver of the pickup truck that came running at him first after all so he had every reason to believe he was justified in doing what he did. He wasn't trying to commit any crime, he was only defending himself, so he shouldn't've gotten in trouble.

 

[Lursa]

I will give another example. This was also in NJ. A martial arts student was driving home and he accidentally cut off a pickup truck. The pickup truck started following him and when he was a couple blocks from his house its still following him. He decides he doesn't want the driver to know where he lives so he pulls over. The pickup truck pulls up behind him, this big guy gets out and comes running at him. The martial arts student sidesteps him, knees him in the stomach and hits him in the mouth with a ridge hand and knocks some of his teeth out.

As it turns out, the martial arts student gets in big trouble. He is slapped with a felony, he has to make two court appearances, he gets fined, sued, has to pay for the guy's teeth and would've been looking at prison time had he not had a lawyer in his second court appearance. Since he had a lawyer in his second court appearance he was able to avoid prison time but still has to pay a fine, he's still sued, and he still has to pay for the guy's teeth. He also still has a felony record which means that he loses some of his rights as an American citizen and he might never be able to hold down a job. He thought he was in the right. It was the driver of the pickup truck that came running at him first after all so he had every reason to believe he was justified in doing what he did. He wasn't trying to commit any crime, he was only defending himself, so he shouldn't've gotten in trouble.

Martial arts student shouldnt have gotten out of his car. I question his stated motive for pulling over.

I also still dont necessarily agree with the conviction but dont really believe we have the whole story here.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Martial arts student shouldnt have gotten out of his car. I question his stated motive for pulling over.

I also still dont necessarily agree with the conviction but dont really believe we have the whole story here.

The pickup truck was still following him. Had the martial arts student not pulled over and gotten out what else could he have done? He could've continued to drive home in which case the pickup truck would most likely still be following him so he could get attacked once he got home, or at least the driver of the pickup truck would know where he lives which he didn't want.

It was the driver of the pickup truck who attacked the martial arts student first so the martial arts student acted in self defense.

 

[Lursa]

The pickup truck was still following him. Had the martial arts student not pulled over and gotten out what else could he have done? He could've continued to drive home in which case the pickup truck would most likely still be following him so he could get attacked once he got home, or at least the driver of the pickup truck would know where he lives which he didn't want.

It was the driver of the pickup truck who attacked the martial arts student first so the martial arts student acted in self defense.

You are supposed to drive to a police station or very public place, even a strip mall if you feel it's unsafe to continue driving. You are not supposed to drive home.

And we dont know as 'fact' who initiated the incident. Martial arts student "claims" cutting him off was an accident. That requires investigation...because it's 100% in his best interests to claim it.

 

[joko104]

The number of hours in the past I spent in "martial arts training" is thousands of hours. Many. In full contact sparring more times than I can recall. The number of RL "fights" I was in - if that is what they are called - also many - lots. Mostly as an adult that was part of my job. Noting this was in the growingly distant past, back then I was about the last person on earth any other man (or men) should try to prick around or mess with. I hurt a lot of men in my past. Never a bully - I broke bullies - and never looking for a fight, nor motivated by anger or pleasure. Just doing what needed to be done.

However, I never entered ANY competitions of any kind and don't have so much as a white belt. The lawyers were adamant that I NEVER obtain any ratings of any kind. Nor should I ever carry or use a weapon, even a weapon I took from the other person - and I went out of my way not to cause any permanently crippling physical damage to the other man/men.

This case is exactly the reason why. Back then I looked tough and mean as hell, and I was tougher than I looked - a lot. If added to that was boxes of fighting trophies and top ratings in multi-forms of martial arts would have changed it from "just being a fight" to a pro breaking up a seemingly defenseless person. By listening to those lawyers and doing (and saying/not saying) EXACTLY as they instructed, I don't have so much as a parking ticket conviction - though I was questioned, brought and even detained for a while by police on dozens of occasions. (Having canned "witnesses" in my pocket also helped, but that's another matter. :lol

 

[joko104]

I will give another example. This was also in NJ. A martial arts student was driving home and he accidentally cut off a pickup truck. The pickup truck started following him and when he was a couple blocks from his house its still following him. He decides he doesn't want the driver to know where he lives so he pulls over. The pickup truck pulls up behind him, this big guy gets out and comes running at him. The martial arts student sidesteps him, knees him in the stomach and hits him in the mouth with a ridge hand and knocks some of his teeth out.

As it turns out, the martial arts student gets in big trouble. He is slapped with a felony, he has to make two court appearances, he gets fined, sued, has to pay for the guy's teeth and would've been looking at prison time had he not had a lawyer in his second court appearance. Since he had a lawyer in his second court appearance he was able to avoid prison time but still has to pay a fine, he's still sued, and he still has to pay for the guy's teeth. He also still has a felony record which means that he loses some of his rights as an American citizen and he might never be able to hold down a job. He thought he was in the right. It was the driver of the pickup truck that came running at him first after all so he had every reason to believe he was justified in doing what he did. He wasn't trying to commit any crime, he was only defending himself, so he shouldn't've gotten in trouble.

A saying I used to often use:

If a man goes looking for trouble, sometimes he is unlucky enough to find it in ways unwanted. That martial arts guy went looking for trouble - and he found it - with the legal system.

He got out of his truck, certain he could win a fight. He won the fight. He lost the war. He acted stupidly because he saw himself as a tough guy due to martial arts.

 

[Serenity]

There was a case of a man from North Carolina who was on a business trip to Maine. While on the trip he had a loaded handgun in a briefcase since he had a North Carolina carry permit. He was pulled over for speeding in New Jersey and got in big trouble for having a loaded handgun in the state of New Jersey. He honestly thought he was within the law since he did have a carry permit, he just didn't know his carry permit wasn't valid in NJ. So he shouldn't've gotten in trouble.

Nonsense.

Different States have different Laws. If you are travelling to a different State then it's up to you to take responsibility for your own actions and to educate yourself on what those Laws may be.

Speed limits for an example are set by each State and differ between States. Try saying "I didn't know" when you get picked up for exceeding the speed limit and see how that works out for you.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Speed limits for an example are set by each State and differ between States. Try saying "I didn't know" when you get picked up for exceeding the speed limit and see how that works out for you.

Speeding and saying you didn't know the speed limit won't cut it if the speed limit is clearly posted. If the speed limit isn't clearly posted, if the sign is down or blocked by vegetation that's another story but when its clearly posted there is no reason to not know it.

 

[joko104]

Nonsense.

Different States have different Laws. If you are travelling to a different State then it's up to you to take responsibility for your own actions and to educate yourself on what those Laws may be.

Speed limits for an example are set by each State and differ between States. Try saying "I didn't know" when you get picked up for exceeding the speed limit and see how that works out for you.

Speeding is not a good analogy. Rather, an analogy would be if you are driving down the road you must know the speed limit for ever mile of road for every city, county, state and federal highway - with NO speed limit signs. Then claim it was your responsibility to look up what all the speed limits are for each jurisdiction and each section of road and highway are today - every day. If speed limits are changed anywhere, it is your responsibility to immediately know this too.

There is NO website or other source that states the gun laws of every city, county, parish and state in the USA a person can research. If you were driving cross country you would have to check the statutes and ordinances one at a time for hundreds of jurisdictions - noting any could change the minute after you even did that. Even ATF inspectors of gun shops will acknowledge even they don't fully understand just federal AFT regulations - which often are reversed back and forth.

You often debate gun laws and regulations - but I am certain you don't know what they all are. Yet you debate for changes seemingly as if you think you do know. If I am wrong, list from your knowledge the items in the "point system" that can add up to making a legal firearm illegal. Can you? What is your excuse for not knowing?

I think it is 100% reasonable and necessary if a person from another state is merely passing thru a jurisdiction while traveling with firearms locked in the trunk legal in their own jurisdiction that "Full Faith And Credit" between states should apply. "Knowing ALL gun laws and rules in ALL jurisdictions for a road trip is literally impossible - just like knowing the speed limits without signage for every inch of road on a 1,000 mile road trip would literally be impossible since they constantly change.

 

[joko104]

Speeding and saying you didn't know the speed limit won't cut it if the speed limit is clearly posted. If the speed limit isn't clearly posted, if the sign is down or blocked by vegetation that's another story but when its clearly posted there is no reason to not know it.

Generally there is NO signage about gun laws other than for gun free zone signs. Nor any easy way to find out.

Try calling the police department or prosecutor of any city and ask "What are all the gun law rules and regulations that apply in your city?" and I am rather certain they would not spend half an hour answering. If so said, "ok, can you send me or email me something that says all gun laws and regulations of your city" the response would be they don't have any list like that.

For gun laws, there is no notice. There are no lists. There is no signage. Nor is there reliable consistency. Legal today. A felony tomorrow. Legal the day after that.

Here's a test question. Can any of you answer it from what you already know - since bumpstocks were SERIOUSLY debated on this forum:

Bumpstocks were banned, equating them to machine guns. However, a person can own a machine gun IF the apply for a license from the AFT, pay $200, and undergo a background check by the ATF. So the question is can a person have a bumpstock if they go thru the same procedures as owning a machine gun, short barrel rifle, silencer/suppressor and other firearms so restricted - OR are bumpstocks impossible for anyone to legally have?
Yes, in 90 days they had to be destroyed or turned it - but it was that way when machine guns and short barrel shotguns were banned too - with it allowed to have them by going thru those steps. SO... does that also apply to bumpstocks too - or not?
Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to know the law - and no one should debate anything such as bumpstocks without at least knowing what the law now on them is, right?

 

[joko104]

Here's another example:

Florida has no state vehicle inspects and NO front license plates. But nearly all states do have inspection stickers, require inspection stickers and require front license plates. So why aren't all Florida vehicles ticketed when traveling in such other states? Why aren't ALL non-California compliant vehicles in California on out of state plates not stopped, the drivers arrested and the vehicles impounded? That is how it is for guns by out of state owners whose firearms are legal in their state.

 

[DebateChallenge]

The number of hours in the past I spent in "martial arts training" is thousands of hours. Many. In full contact sparring more times than I can recall. The number of RL "fights" I was in - if that is what they are called - also many - lots. Mostly as an adult that was part of my job. Noting this was in the growingly distant past, back then I was about the last person on earth any other man (or men) should try to prick around or mess with. I hurt a lot of men in my past. Never a bully - I broke bullies - and never looking for a fight, nor motivated by anger or pleasure. Just doing what needed to be done.

However, I never entered ANY competitions of any kind and don't have so much as a white belt. The lawyers were adamant that I NEVER obtain any ratings of any kind. Nor should I ever carry or use a weapon, even a weapon I took from the other person - and I went out of my way not to cause any permanently crippling physical damage to the other man/men.

This case is exactly the reason why. Back then I looked tough and mean as hell, and I was tougher than I looked - a lot. If added to that was boxes of fighting trophies and top ratings in multi-forms of martial arts would have changed it from "just being a fight" to a pro breaking up a seemingly defenseless person. By listening to those lawyers and doing (and saying/not saying) EXACTLY as they instructed, I don't have so much as a parking ticket conviction - though I was questioned, brought and even detained for a while by police on dozens of occasions. (Having canned "witnesses" in my pocket also helped, but that's another matter. :lol

If you did have lots of formal martial arts training, belts, and boxes of trophies the courts wouldn't need to know about it. Its best to keep such stuff to yourself as the courts have no business knowing such stuff.

Lets say you use a gun in a confrontation and you shoot somebody. It would be practically impossible to deny the fact you used a gun. There would be witnesses who would see you use the gun. There would be witnesses who would hear you use the gun as guns are quite loud. There would of course be physical evidence, the bullet if they're able to recover it, the bullet wound on the person you shot, the gun itself, ect. So in court you really couldn't deny the fact you used a gun.

Now lets say you've got a heavy background in the martial arts and you use martial arts in a confrontation. You could deny that you had any martial arts training, you could say that you just did stuff you saw on television or on youtube, you could even say you don't even remember exactly what you did. Its not like the example with the gun where you shoot somebody, its much easier to deny the use of martial arts or any background in the martial arts than it is to deny the use of a gun where you shoot somebody.

 

[DebateChallenge]

A saying I used to often use:

If a man goes looking for trouble, sometimes he is unlucky enough to find it in ways unwanted. That martial arts guy went looking for trouble - and he found it - with the legal system.

He got out of his truck, certain he could win a fight. He won the fight. He lost the war. He acted stupidly because he saw himself as a tough guy due to martial arts.

The martial arts student was not looking for trouble and he wasn't driving a truck, he was driving a car. The martial arts student accidentally cut off the pickup truck and it was the driver of the pickup truck that started following him and was still following him when he was a couple blocks from his house. Rather than drive home with the pickup truck still following him and the truck driver learning where he lived, the martial arts student pulled over and got out of his car to confront the truck driver. It was the truck driver who got out of his truck and came charging at the martial arts student and who ended up getting knocked to the ground minus some teeth. The truck driver could've stopped following the martial arts student. The truck driver could've not gotten out of his truck and come charging at the martial arts student. The truck driver could've just kept on driving when the martial arts student pulled over. Instead, it was the truck driver who charged at the martial arts student first.

No, you shouldn't cut people off on the road but if somebody does cut you off it doesn't justify following them and charging at them.

 

[joko104]

If you did have lots of formal martial arts training, belts, and boxes of trophies the courts wouldn't need to know about it. Its best to keep such stuff to yourself as the courts have no business knowing such stuff.

Lets say you use a gun in a confrontation and you shoot somebody. It would be practically impossible to deny the fact you used a gun. There would be witnesses who would see you use the gun. There would be witnesses who would hear you use the gun as guns are quite loud. There would of course be physical evidence, the bullet if they're able to recover it, the bullet wound on the person you shot, the gun itself, ect. So in court you really couldn't deny the fact you used a gun.

Now lets say you've got a heavy background in the martial arts and you use martial arts in a confrontation. You could deny that you had any martial arts training, you could say that you just did stuff you saw on television or on youtube, you could even say you don't even remember exactly what you did. Its not like the example with the gun where you shoot somebody, its much easier to deny the use of martial arts or any background in the martial arts than it is to deny the use of a gun where you shoot somebody.

While I understand your point, having a martial arts rating and lying about it to police and in court not only is a crime (false statement to the police/perjury), but that lie could both get you arrested plus convicted for the assault case itself. Getting caught lying on the witness stand usually goes badly for Defendants from what I've read.

The "reasonableness" of needing to use a gun is subjective. For example, the the person being attacked is an old woman or old man, it is not reasonable to believe they could defend unarmed even against an unarmed attacker. Why? Did you know that twice as many people were year are murdered by bare hands than by all murders by all rifles of any kind combined, including AR15s?

However, if a young, muscular guy is attacked by an unarmed whimpy guy, shooting that attacker would be unreasonable. The question, always, is "what would a reasonable person do" when under violent attack. Since I know a single blow - even just a lucky punch by a whimp - potentially could kill the toughest guy, personally I would grant HUGE allowance to anyone under a violent attack to use nearly ANY means of self defense - as I see the victim having to take ZERO changes in self defense.

Unlike in the movies, if a bad guy is shot they do not instantly fall to the ground dead. Even someone shot in the heart or aorta still has many seconds at least left to harm the victim.

There have been videos of this, including of police shootings, where an attack (such as with a knife) can be shot multiple times by the police and even fall, but get up and be stabbing the officer because the officer wrongly concluded the person going down meant the person poised no danger - and that was a police officer with a back up officer - both with their guns on the guy with the knife.

 

[GDViking]

Many laws require criminal intent, which should include knowing that an act was illegal. If one does not know that a particular species (or size, age or gender of that species) is not legal to fish/hunt for they can still be charged with that offense since it is simply possessing that animal which is illegal.

I was stopped by a game warden and asked for a "trout stamp" fishing license when I was dip netting for crawfish and minnows in a small stream (for use as bait in a nearby river). That stream was posted (a sign was over 400 feet away) in the opposite direction of my approach to it, but since I had no trout (or hooks/fishing poles) in my possession he did not ticket me. My fishing equipment consisted of an 18" X 24" piece of 1/4" mesh hardware cloth and a coffee can for bait storage - I did have a valid fishing license but it lacked a "trout stamp" certification.

I was on a Wisconsin trout committee for many years, and was involved in writing many regulations.

From my experience, each and every warden or conservation officer interprets those laws in the field as they see fit, regardless of what the intention of the statute was intended for.

As a general rule they are normally fair, however some can be authority junkies and nail anyone that even slips...

 

[GDViking]

I was on a Wisconsin trout committee for many years, and was involved in writing many regulations.

From my experience, each and every warden or conservation officer interprets those laws in the field as they see fit, regardless of what the intention of the statute was intended for.

As a general rule they are normally fair, however some can be authority junkies and nail anyone that even slips...

One additional comment, you are required to know where you are and the regulations for that location at all times, land or water.

If the warden wanted to be a dick he would have been on the right side of the law...

 

[Jason Warfield]

I will give another example. This was also in NJ. A martial arts student was driving home and he accidentally cut off a pickup truck. The pickup truck started following him and when he was a couple blocks from his house its still following him. He decides he doesn't want the driver to know where he lives so he pulls over. The pickup truck pulls up behind him, this big guy gets out and comes running at him. The martial arts student sidesteps him, knees him in the stomach and hits him in the mouth with a ridge hand and knocks some of his teeth out.

As it turns out, the martial arts student gets in big trouble. He is slapped with a felony, he has to make two court appearances, he gets fined, sued, has to pay for the guy's teeth and would've been looking at prison time had he not had a lawyer in his second court appearance. Since he had a lawyer in his second court appearance he was able to avoid prison time but still has to pay a fine, he's still sued, and he still has to pay for the guy's teeth. He also still has a felony record which means that he loses some of his rights as an American citizen and he might never be able to hold down a job. He thought he was in the right. It was the driver of the pickup truck that came running at him first after all so he had every reason to believe he was justified in doing what he did. He wasn't trying to commit any crime, he was only defending himself, so he shouldn't've gotten in trouble.

I am not a black belt, but I have taken self-defense courses including martial arts over the years. In every single class, when I first started, the instructor gives you a lesson in how to avoid using your skills in self-defense: run away.

There were two reasons why. First, the popular reason: you can get into trouble with the law under certain circumstances if you use it. The "my hands are registered weapons" reason. The second, more common sense and unpopular reason is you have no idea what the person you are up against is capable of or if they armed, or if there are two many of them. You are taught that self defense is a last resort.

So, when I read this example, my immediate thought was that either this guy was a douchebag and looking for a fight, or that this is made up.

He could have gotten to a well-attended place like a store, mall. or a police station or highway patrol barracks. Of find a well-lit place with cameras and make a call to the police. Or, he could've just kept on driving and let the guy in the pick up blow off steam. If he pulled over, he should stay in the car and made a big show of calling the police. Or pull over, what for the guy in the pick up to get our and approach and then drive away, giving himself time to get away. he had plenty of options. And ignorance of the law is still not an excuse.

 

[Mason66]

You won't get many officers or courts to accept the defense that you didn't know because a lot of the laws were created as a money grab and nothing more.

The government never voluntarily lets go of money.

 

[Lursa]

Why no response here? Can I clarify something for you?

The pickup truck was still following him. Had the martial arts student not pulled over and gotten out what else could he have done? He could've continued to drive home in which case the pickup truck would most likely still be following him so he could get attacked once he got home, or at least the driver of the pickup truck would know where he lives which he didn't want.

It was the driver of the pickup truck who attacked the martial arts student first so the martial arts student acted in self defense.

You are supposed to drive to a police station or very public place, even a strip mall if you feel it's unsafe to continue driving. You are not supposed to drive home.

And we dont know as 'fact' who initiated the incident. Martial arts student "claims" cutting him off was an accident. That requires investigation...because it's 100% in his best interests to claim it.

If nothing else, I hope I at least offered you advice on keeping yourself and family safe in an instance where you are being followed.

 

[Bodi]

Should a person get in trouble for breaking the law if they don't know better? Ignorance of the law will not get you off the hook, so we're told, but is that fair? What if a person honestly doesn't know better?

No. They should not get in trouble at all... which is why I never read laws or pay attention when a person is talking about them.

I want 100% deniability.