sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
A protection they seem to have granted themselves along with a parasitical symbiotic relationship with the rulers.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Should ignorance of the law be an excuse for LACs like it is for LEOs/LEAs?
- Thread starter skidmark
- Start date
A protection they seem to have granted themselves along with a parasitical symbiotic relationship with the rulers.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Maybe I don't understand what you mean, but I don't think this is a good way of looking at things. Being in the age of instant internet access to "basically all human knowledge" (which is really a huge exaggeration, IMO) is of little consequence in difficult scenarios one might find themselves in on the street...
And that goes both ways, for citizens and law enforcement... Get pulled over for violating some arbitrary traffic law at an odd intersection type that you have no experience navigating, when you caused no accident or trouble... Explain situation to judge... Judge asks, do you have a cell phone with internet access? Of course you do, it is the age of instant internet access. Then your ignorance of the law is no excuse. What? Obviously this makes no sense... The number of equally preposterous applications of the idea that ignorance is no excuse, just because it is the age of the internet, is innumerable.
Understanding takes time and study, not just a quick, impromptu google search.
Edit: note that I'm not saying that ignorance is an excuse, I'm simply saying that I don't buy that the fact we're in the information age is why it isn't an excuse.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
No, I do not have a cellphone with Interwebz access. I am cheap on this topic.
Cops do not need Interwebz access, just their "field (e-)handbook" that is rumored to list (summarize) the laws they are charged to enforce. If the field handbook does not specifically address (list), exactly, the violation witnessed (or reported), the cop must not act, ever. This "detaining" the citizen for X number of minutes and researching (looking for something to hang on the dude) a violation that is "close enough" must be stopped and cops who engage in such behavior must be disbarred, summarily, from any employment in LE, permanently.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
+1 rep
since9
Campaign Veteran
Rather than your straw man argument concerning "basically all human knowledge," let's stick with the more reasonable and rational issue that there's no excuse for law enforcement if they don't know the law. For example, I've heard cops say one thing, at which point I thought, "That doesn't sound right..." and upon looking it up, I discovered my hunch was correct.
The point is, where did I look that up? Did I peruse "all human knowledge?" Of course not. We cannot expect cops to know "all human knowledge." Furthermore, I submit that we can't expect them to know every local, state, and federal law pertaining to their jurisdiction, either.
That's why they're given General Orders, and they're told, "know these." General Orders usually come in two volumes, or "Manuals:" Administrative and Field. These days, they are usually provided online for reference by the public as well as other law enforcement agencies.
Here's a prime example.
Again, you're using straw man arguments to blow things way out of proportion. While the "innumerable" Internet is indeed unknowable, you're talking about a relatively minute microcosm of information surrounding driving through intersections. Having been in 33 different countries, I've encountered some wacky intersections, certainly far worse than anything that exists here in the U.S. Did I crash? No. Did I cause an accident? No. Well, why the heck not?
Simple: Sufficient training in high school driver's ed, a couple years of experience navigating U.S. roads, and sound judgement.
But I don't think the thread was referring to our knowledge of the law, but that of law enforcement.
When I flew airplanes for a living, I was given enough time to thoroughly study my regs. Knowing the General Orders through and through is central to a cop's job. It may not take top billing, but it's certainly up there.
And yes, they're usually available online, so for the cop, there's no excuse. If you examine SFPD's General Orders on Investigative Detentions, for example, it's crystal clear as to the nature of their duties and limitations. Use of Firearms is another good example.
As we've seen above, most of us can access our local law enforcement department's General Orders. If they're not online, ask them where you can obtain a copy. Law enforcement is allowed to violate them only upon authorization from higher authority, or if they have a very good, rational reason for doing so, and as stated in many of the orders, "hunches" aren't one of them.
When it comes to responsibility, however, I have no responsibility, stated or implied, to know their General Orders. I am, however, responsible for knowing the rules of the road, including what to do at strange and unusual intersections.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
May be they should get more class hours regarding our constitution at the police academy...
My .02
My .02
OC for ME
Regular Member
Cops need to know the law that they allege you or I violate at the time they allege we violated it. Where the constitution comes into play is when they get it wrong. Remember, cops can now legitimately claim a misunderstanding of the law and you and I are screwed.
The N. Charleston incident is a example of a cop not knowing/following law as written. That citizen would likely be alive today if that cop knew and followed the law. The laws are not, typically, written in Shakespearean prose.
If I can find the law in a few minutes of googling, a cop can find the law, and thus the exact language, in just as short of time, especially if the field manual has the statute number. His mistake, on the side of the road, could be "hidden" by a "polite" warning, like in the good ole days.
"Sir/Mam, I noticed your "brake light," the one in the back window, is out, you might want to get that fixed as soon as you are able. Have a nice day and be safe."
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
What?
I don't think you understood what I was saying.
Nor does my post contain straw man arguments.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
No, pretty sure you didn't. You stated that my reference to "basically all human knowledge" is a strawman, but it is actually a direct quote of the person to which I was replying.
The person I was replying to was insinuating that the fact we live in the information age and that most have internet access readily available makes ignorance of law less acceptable. I disagreed, and used reductio ad absurdum (which is not a straw man argument) to show situations where that line of reasoning (his actual line of reasoning, not modified, aka a straw man) is obviously untrue, unreasonable. If what he said is not what he meant, that's on him, not me.
I did not use straw man arguments. If my arguments were inapplicable, it was only due to misunderstanding of the posters intended point, not an attempt do obfuscate. If my arguments were inapplicable, perhaps the poster should have been more clear, since I can only reply to what he actually says, and not what he intended to communicate, if the two differ.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Well, that's only partially true. Of the five main categories of error in communications, errors in encoding (bad writing) as well as errors in decoding (bad reading comprehension) are the most common on message forums.
Straw man arguments are often unintentional. It's actually as much of a reflect about the way normal people think than any intent to deceive. Instead of blaming the poster, however, you'd become a better poster yourself if you chose to peruse some resources on logical discourse. I've been at it for 29 years, yet I constantly refer to these resources. Students in philosophy study a number of things, but building logical argument as well as recognizing logical fallacy are absolutely critical to proper logical discourse. And yes, it is heady stuff. That's why it uses its own branch of mathematics and is usually taught at the graduate level. That doesn't mean your average person can't wrap their heads around it with some study. Of course you can.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I appreciate it, but you aren't introducing me to recognizing common fallacies. I don't believe my argument contained straw mans as you accused.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Saw this on facebook, thought it was relevant...
"While the dispatcher and motorcyclist may not have known the details of Ohio’s open-carry firearm law, the police officer had no basis for such uncertainty. If it is appropriate to presume that citizens know the parameters of the criminal laws, it is surely appropriate to expect the same of law enforcement officers—at least with regard to unambiguous statutes. Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 540 (2014)." Northrup v. Toledo Police Department
"While the dispatcher and motorcyclist may not have known the details of Ohio’s open-carry firearm law, the police officer had no basis for such uncertainty. If it is appropriate to presume that citizens know the parameters of the criminal laws, it is surely appropriate to expect the same of law enforcement officers—at least with regard to unambiguous statutes. Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 540 (2014)." Northrup v. Toledo Police Department
since9
Campaign Veteran
I understand the need for at least some degree of qualified immunity. Given the nature of the job, and the fact that people do make mistakes, if law enforcement had no immunity, only dumb ones would ever sign up for the job.
On the other hand, both the laws on the books and the courts must pierce the qualified immunity veil. We cannot allow law enforcement to get away with flagrant violations by hiding behind qualified immunity.
I think the laws and courts in many communities are already there. Not in New York and Los Angeles, however. They need a LOT of work before justice is achieved.
On the other hand, both the laws on the books and the courts must pierce the qualified immunity veil. We cannot allow law enforcement to get away with flagrant violations by hiding behind qualified immunity.
I think the laws and courts in many communities are already there. Not in New York and Los Angeles, however. They need a LOT of work before justice is achieved.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I don't think I could agree with you on that.
In his white paper, Are Police Constitutional?[SUP]1[/SUP], Dr. Roger Roots points out that in the early days of this republic, a person who executed a search warrant on less than probable cause was liable for double damages. The magistrate who issued such a warrant was liable for triple damages.
Also, there were no police when the 4th Amendment was written--cops didn't come along until 1829 when they were invented in London by Robert Peel. So, suddenly our 4A protections are reduced by the invention of a government organ, rather than make the government organ adhere to the protections?
Terry v Ohio[SUP]2[/SUP] quotes an earlier case, Union Pacific Rail Co. v Botsford. "No right is held more sacred or more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of all individuals to the possession and control of their person, free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Sounds pretty clear to me. It also aligns very closely to the foundational principle of delegated power--government only gots the power its was delegated by the people. If a cop ain't operating on a delegated power, he's committing an assault or tort. Plain and simple. The only reason he can arrest, search, etc., is because the people delegated a specific power to him. One fraction of millionth of an inch past that power, he is no different than any other citizen.
Qualified immunity and reasonable mistakes of law are inventions of the courts to protect police, and allow them to commit offenses and torts against serfs without being held accountable.
If a cop is not dang sure he has such-and-such authority, he can omit to act. And, then learn whether he has authority for the next time. And, suffer ridicule or censure for not knowing in the first place when its his job to know.
1. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
2. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17773604035873288886&q=Terry+vs+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Eliminate QI! If a cop don't see it, misdemeanor, or is told it by a reliable and verifiable source, felony, he must not act...ever. If he does act and is proven to have acted beyond the law, just like us, he must then be charged as we would, or not, as we would.
Prosecutors and judges as well. Especially judges, immediate removal from the bench for the slightest of slights to the law, common and statutory.
Finally, remove all exemptions in the laws that cops enjoy. Such as driving while distracted while using a electronic device. The cop in California that killed the cyclist is but one of a untold number of examples of cops violating laws that we must adhere to.
Prosecutors and judges as well. Especially judges, immediate removal from the bench for the slightest of slights to the law, common and statutory.
Finally, remove all exemptions in the laws that cops enjoy. Such as driving while distracted while using a electronic device. The cop in California that killed the cyclist is but one of a untold number of examples of cops violating laws that we must adhere to.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Wrong!! A judge let the prosecutor take GZ to trial when the cops had it right from the get-go...as but one example. Judges are co-conspirators in the erosion of individual liberty...yeah, I know, cops take advantage of this arrangement for their own gratifications.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
OC for ME
Regular Member
Misunderstandings of the law reinforce QI. Exemptions for cops, in the law, buttress QI. Prosecutors routinely decline to prosecute cops who clearly violate the law because a judge will instruct a jury as to what the law ment vs. what the law clearly states, thus diminishing the likelihood of successfully gaining guilty verdict. Finally, judges will dismiss cop abuses because only the cops are "qualified" to be the "reasonable man" when applying the test.
QI is typically applied before discovery.
Terry v. Ohio set the wheels in motion and what is today, is what it is. This does not deprive the ought from becoming is. Work to eliminate QI and exemptions in the law for cops.
QI is typically applied before discovery.
Terry v. Ohio set the wheels in motion and what is today, is what it is. This does not deprive the ought from becoming is. Work to eliminate QI and exemptions in the law for cops.