Know your Rights - know the laws

[Aunt Spiker]

If you are expected to *know* the laws then why aren't you expected to *know* your rights?

Know the laws:
If you visit another state during the winter where they have a law that states 'you cannot have snow chains on your tires' - and you happen to come in with snow chains on your tires - you can be fined. They will state 'you are *suppose* to know the laws.

A lack of knowledge of the laws is not a defense because they consider it your duty to *know the law*

Know your rights:
The Miranda ruling is an example of this issue. They must inform you of your rights - they do not assume you already know them.

A lack of knowledge of your rights IS a defense because they do not expect you to know your rights.

_________

To me it would make more sense to expect you to *know the law* and also to *know your rights* - unlike how it's set up now.

 

[RosieS]

The differing standards are due to the penalties. Depriving you of your money is much less odious than depriving you of your liberty; therefore an arrest holds the law to a higher standard of informing you than a fine does.

Regards from Rosie

 

[winston53660]

If you are expected to *know* the laws then why aren't you expected to *know* your rights?

Know the laws:
If you visit another state during the winter where they have a law that states 'you cannot have snow chains on your tires' - and you happen to come in with snow chains on your tires - you can be fined. They will state 'you are *suppose* to know the laws.

A lack of knowledge of the laws is not a defense because they consider it your duty to *know the law*

Know your rights:
The Miranda ruling is an example of this issue. They must inform you of your rights - they do not assume you already know them.

A lack of knowledge of your rights IS a defense because they do not expect you to know your rights.

_________

To me it would make more sense to expect you to *know the law* and also to *know your rights* - unlike how it's set up now.

Here in a suburb of Dallas, Garland, the city has not put up no cell phone in a school zone signs. The law is there but the signs are not. Consequently the Garland police can not write tickets for this law.

 

[MaggieD]

Here in a suburb of Dallas, Garland, the city has not put up no cell phone in a school zone signs. The law is there but the signs are not. Consequently the Garland police can not write tickets for this law.

They may have chosen NOT to write tickets, but that's a choice officers are making. There is no law that says laws have to be posted.

 

[winston53660]

They may have chosen NOT to write tickets, but that's a choice officers are making. There is no law that says laws have to be posted.

Nope, with out the signs the law can not be enforced.

 

[MaggieD]

Nope, with out the signs the law can not be enforced.

Link to a court case, please.

Edit: Never mind, Winston. It seems the law was written saying the signs had to be posted and some indvidual towns are electing not to do so. This is a bit different.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

I don't think you have a responsibility to know the law. There are so many laws that vary so widely depending on location that it would be impossible to know every law.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

If you are expected to *know* the laws then why aren't you expected to *know* your rights?

Know the laws:
If you visit another state during the winter where they have a law that states 'you cannot have snow chains on your tires' - and you happen to come in with snow chains on your tires - you can be fined. They will state 'you are *suppose* to know the laws.

A lack of knowledge of the laws is not a defense because they consider it your duty to *know the law*

Know your rights:
The Miranda ruling is an example of this issue. They must inform you of your rights - they do not assume you already know them.

A lack of knowledge of your rights IS a defense because they do not expect you to know your rights.

_________

To me it would make more sense to expect you to *know the law* and also to *know your rights* - unlike how it's set up now.

That would indeed make more sense, and I find the constitutional basis of arizona v miranda to be lacking. I'm glad that the decision is what it is and think that the US is better for the miranda warning, though

 

[jamesrage]

If you are expected to *know* the laws then why aren't you expected to *know* your rights?

Know the laws:
If you visit another state during the winter where they have a law that states 'you cannot have snow chains on your tires' - and you happen to come in with snow chains on your tires - you can be fined. They will state 'you are *suppose* to know the laws.

A lack of knowledge of the laws is not a defense because they consider it your duty to *know the law*

Know your rights:
The Miranda ruling is an example of this issue. They must inform you of your rights - they do not assume you already know them.

A lack of knowledge of your rights IS a defense because they do not expect you to know your rights.

_________

To me it would make more sense to expect you to *know the law* and also to *know your rights* - unlike how it's set up now.

Personally I do not think it is anyone's responsibility for anyone to remind you of your rights or what the law says. That said I think that instead of 3 R's in school there should be 4 which is Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic and constitutional Rights(not only what the rights are but who wrote them and why were those rights created in the constitution).

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

If you are expected to *know* the laws then why aren't you expected to *know* your rights?

Know the laws:
If you visit another state during the winter where they have a law that states 'you cannot have snow chains on your tires' - and you happen to come in with snow chains on your tires - you can be fined. They will state 'you are *suppose* to know the laws.

A lack of knowledge of the laws is not a defense because they consider it your duty to *know the law*

Know your rights:
The Miranda ruling is an example of this issue. They must inform you of your rights - they do not assume you already know them.

A lack of knowledge of your rights IS a defense because they do not expect you to know your rights.

_________

To me it would make more sense to expect you to *know the law* and also to *know your rights* - unlike how it's set up now.

The "ignorance is no excuse" line is usually used because there are so many stupid laws, that they make it your job to know them.
I hate it and it doesn't make any sense to require people to know thousands of laws and regulations that, may or may not effect them.

 

[Diogenes]

I don't think you have a responsibility to know the law. There are so many laws that vary so widely depending on location that it would be impossible to know every law.

Good luck selling that to the IRS. Unless you are in Congress, of course...

 

[rathi]

I find it rather pathetic how difficult it is to actually learn the law. Simply finding the actual text is tricky enough, getting the relevant court cases and interpretation of the law is quite hard. With the power of the internet, there is no reason that every law shouldn't be put into a centralized and organized database, which includes the text of the law, relevant court rulings and links to related legislation. It is embarrassing that the governments makes no effort to inform the public, and that the public is so comfortable being completely ignorant.

 

[Orion]

Most laws are stupid and easily bypassed, but there are some important ones you should always know and adhere to. Other than that, I would say it's equally as important to know how to break a law with discretion, since most people tend to do it at some point or another.

More importantly, one must know the justice system, even though the laws are part of the justice system. You need to know what to do if your government authorities ever try coming down on you. Mostly it's hopeless, but that doesn't mean you can't fight them tooth and nail.

 

[bicycleman]

I don't think you have a responsibility to know the law. There are so many laws that vary so widely depending on location that it would be impossible to know every law.

Law enforcement sure doesn't know the law. A friend of mine was open carrying a pistol in a local festival. The city had an ordinance about carrying weapons in the city, but what they didn't know was that state law superseded local laws. My friend knew this, but was tackled, roughed up, and had his gun confiscated. He got a court order to have his gun returned to him, and the city had to apologize over their overzealous deputy sherrifs. You might know the law, but just try and tell that to a cop.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Law enforcement sure doesn't know the law. A friend of mine was open carrying a pistol in a local festival. The city had an ordinance about carrying weapons in the city, but what they didn't know was that state law superseded local laws. My friend knew this, but was tackled, roughed up, and had his gun confiscated. He got a court order to have his gun returned to him, and the city had to apologize over their overzealous deputy sherrifs. You might know the law, but just try and tell that to a cop.

Yeah, try refusing a search and see how it goes .

 

[MaggieD]

Law enforcement sure doesn't know the law. A friend of mine was open carrying a pistol in a local festival. The city had an ordinance about carrying weapons in the city, but what they didn't know was that state law superseded local laws. My friend knew this, but was tackled, roughed up, and had his gun confiscated. He got a court order to have his gun returned to him, and the city had to apologize over their overzealous deputy sherrifs. You might know the law, but just try and tell that to a cop.

It is wise to take the position that the copper is always right. Argue your point in court, never on the street.

 

[bicycleman]

It is wise to take the position that the copper is always right. Argue your point in court, never on the street.

He never argued his point and didn't resist arrest. He did tell them they were wrong, but police have this over bearing problem, that they are never wrong.

 

[Goof Noodle]

He never argued his point and didn't resist arrest. He did tell them they were wrong, but police have this over bearing problem, that they are never wrong.

I think it's a union thing

 

[Caine]

Most laws are stupid and easily bypassed, but there are some important ones you should always know and adhere to. Other than that, I would say it's equally as important to know how to break a law with discretion, since most people tend to do it at some point or another.

So you advocate people knowing how to break a law intentionally and getting away with it? That pretty much sums it up?

More importantly, one must know the justice system, even though the laws are part of the justice system. You need to know what to do if your government authorities ever try coming down on you. Mostly it's hopeless, but that doesn't mean you can't fight them tooth and nail.

Yeah, I guess so. :roll:

 

[Caine]

Law enforcement sure doesn't know the law. A friend of mine was open carrying a pistol in a local festival. The city had an ordinance about carrying weapons in the city, but what they didn't know was that state law superseded local laws. My friend knew this, but was tackled, roughed up, and had his gun confiscated. He got a court order to have his gun returned to him, and the city had to apologize over their overzealous deputy sherrifs. You might know the law, but just try and tell that to a cop.

So you watched this happen?

 

[Caine]

Yeah, try refusing a search and see how it goes .

Depends on the type of search..... A search of a vehicle with probable cause.. you can't really refuse it.

A consent search... refuse all you want.

 

[samsmart]

When discussing laws, it's important to note that the concept of "ignorance is not a defense" developed from cuneiform law codes in the Near East. The king would commission that tablets stating the laws of the city-state be drafted and posted all over the city. One reason for this would be so that not even the king could change the city's laws. Another practical reason for it is that it allows visitors to see all the laws of the city, along with the punishments for breaking a law. With these law codes posted throughout the city, ignorance of a law is not a defense because the law is there for all to see.

It should be noted, however, that such law codes didn't list nearly the amount of laws that we have today. For example, the Code of Hammurabi, the most well known of such codes listed only 282 laws. Compare that to the volumes of laws and regulations we have on the federal level, then consider the state level x 50, then all the laws on the county and city level multiplied by every county and city in the U.S.

It is not sane for every person in the U.S. to keep track of them all. Especially when you factor in how often laws change. It's damn hard to rewrite a law when they must be chiseled in stone. But it's all too easy to write on electronic media and then print it.

Also, I think too many people want to write laws governing too many things. Too many people elect politicians who think that by writing up a piece of paper in some city 100 miles away it'll make a certain situation so. If people stopped demanding stupid laws then politicians would stop passing them.

 

[Diogenes]

Also, I think too many people want to write laws governing too many things. Too many people elect politicians who think that by writing up a piece of paper in some city 100 miles away it'll make a certain situation so. If people stopped demanding stupid laws then politicians would stop passing them.

That really is the core of the problem.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Depends on the type of search..... A search of a vehicle with probable cause.. you can't really refuse it.

A consent search... refuse all you want.

It doesn't matter what you do or don't refuse, cops just tell you to stop backsassing them and do it anyway.

 

[Caine]

It doesn't matter what you do or don't refuse, cops just tell you to stop backsassing them and do it anyway.

Wrong.
You can play the paranoia game all you want. It doesn't make it true.

A consent search is a search that you can refuse if you want. If they have probable cause already, they will search anyhow. If they do not, they wont.

Refusal of consent to search does not constitute probable cause to search.