• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Know your Rights - know the laws

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
272
Reaction score
69
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,696
Reaction score
16,413
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
945
Location
Old Virginny
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
945
Location
Old Virginny
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
257
Reaction score
60
Location
Omaha, NE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
Top Bottom