Spirit of the law/ letter of the law

imported post

I just finished up my PC832 class and wanted to get some opinions from you guys.

My instructor stated that CA is a spirit of the law state. For example if you are traveling at 1 mile over the speed limit you would not get acitation because the speed limit is there for safety purposes. In letter of the law you wouldget a citation for 1 mile over because you are technically breaking the law.

The second thing we talked about in class is that officers need to charge criminals with everything they can when they have an arrest because half of the charges will be dropped by the DA anyways. The DA will most likely use the lesser charges as bargaining chips to get a conviction.

Why don't they apply these same thoughts to gun owners.

For example,you have a Ca defined "assault weapon" at the range, who cares. However,if you were to use the same "weapon" in a crime then it would be tacked onto whatever crime you committed.

When it comes to firearms, so many officers are letter of the law type officers (it seems that way).

It seems that what most of us on here fear is having to defend ourselves for legal activities or even worse going to jailfor a stupid mistake (read "school zone").

Fire away

Patrick

imported post

hammerhands32 wrote:

...My instructor stated that CA is a spirit of the law state. For example if you are traveling at 1 mile over the speed limit you would not get acitation because the speed limit is there for safety purposes. In letter of the law you wouldget a citation for 1 mile over because you are technically breaking the law.

The second thing we talked about in class is that officers need to charge criminals with everything they can when they have an arrest because half of the charges will be dropped by the DA anyways. The DA will most likely use the lesser charges as bargaining chips to get a conviction.

Why don't they apply these same thoughts to gun owners.

For example,you have a Ca defined "assault weapon" at the range, who cares. However,if you were to use the same "weapon" in a crime then it would be tacked onto whatever crime you committed.

When it comes to firearms, so many officers are letter of the law type officers (it seems that way).

It seems that what most of us on here fear is having to defend ourselves for legal activities or even worse going to jailfor a stupid mistake (read "school zone")...

Click to expand...

Bull-Hockey !!!

#1 don'tbelieve everything your instructor tells you,it is in the "letter of the law"
from the California Vehicle Code 22351.

Very clear it won't stick in court under safe conditions "under 65mph that is", I will PM it to you this is not the forum for traffic school 101 .

Themain reason the DA would bargain is they really don't have a case and neither party wants to go to court.

On the question of "Clinton-California Gun-Ban" Weapon at the range, putyour theory to the test take it to "show and tell at the police station".

imported post

I would say California is more a "Convenience of the Law" state.

As in, they will charge you the fullest extent of the law because it is easy to throw charges on top of charges.

If you fight them and win, you still had to endure an impoverishing battle that resulted with your financial ruin in the cost of the court or lawyers' fees.

California is one of the most "Liberal" states in the sense of limitation of rights and expansion of criminal law.

imported post

No state or any other jusridiction is a spirit-of-the-law state. They can enforce any law to the letter. Many years ago in SC the speed limit was a SOTL limit and if you could show that it was a safe speed then you would not be charged. However that was changed to be an exact speed. I think this was back in the 60's if I remember correctly.

The enforcement of laws can be the spirit such as the speed limit. In SC normally you are given 5mph on most roads and 10mph on the Interstates. The Captain on the Highway Patrol explained to me that wa primarily due to errors in speedometers and the plain hassle of writing petty tickets. Don't try this with murder as the old "He needed killing" plea rarely works. I have known plenty of people that the LEO have told to put that gun away rather than arrest them. As more than one LEO has told me as long as you behave yourself they don't care. Then there is always the chance of running into the LEO that has had a bad day.

The DA will look at a case and figure which charges will stick and which won't then bargain on the ones that will stick and carry the most punishment to try to work out a deal just to save the courts time and money. How many times does anyone get consecutive sentences. Someone if found guilty of six different crimes and sentenced from one to 10 years for each one. However they run concurrent so he only gets 10 years. The DA and everyone else has wasted their time on proving or fighting the five minor charges. They could have worked out a deal for five years on the one crime and everyone come out better.

imported post

demnogis wrote:

...it is easy to throw charges on top of charges...

Click to expand...

This is called "Shock and Awe".

imported post

AB wrote:

hammerhands32 wrote:

...My instructor stated that CA is a spirit of the law state. For example if you are traveling at 1 mile over the speed limit you would not get acitation because the speed limit is there for safety purposes. In letter of the law you wouldget a citation for 1 mile over because you are technically breaking the law.

The second thing we talked about in class is that officers need to charge criminals with everything they can when they have an arrest because half of the charges will be dropped by the DA anyways. The DA will most likely use the lesser charges as bargaining chips to get a conviction.

Why don't they apply these same thoughts to gun owners.

For example,you have a Ca defined "assault weapon" at the range, who cares. However,if you were to use the same "weapon" in a crime then it would be tacked onto whatever crime you committed.

When it comes to firearms, so many officers are letter of the law type officers (it seems that way).

It seems that what most of us on here fear is having to defend ourselves for legal activities or even worse going to jailfor a stupid mistake (read "school zone")...

Click to expand...

...On the question of "Clinton-California Gun-Ban" Weapon at the range, putyour theory to the test take it to "show and tell at the police station".

Click to expand...

Others have done the testing for me showing that this state is a "letter of the law" state. Thanks anyways.

I was not spouting off "My teacher said, so it's true" statements. I just wanted to hear some of the feed back from LE about these statements.

imported post

How quickly a viewpoint can change.

I was returning from a job site yesterday in a large moving van when we were pulled into the CHP scale in Fairfield, CA. The inspector steps up and asks if everyone is wearing their seatbelt.

Everyone is, except me as my seatbelt is broken. I tell her, she says ok like it is not a big deal. She does the inspection, which we pass, and then asks for my I.D. even though I am not the one driving. When I ask what for, she informs me that I will be getting a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt.

I overreact and say I am not signing the ticket. Sure enough, that type of officer we all love shows up saying he is going to take me to jail for not signing and nobody talks to his inspection people that way (all I said is that I'm not signing any ticket).

I sign the ticket, not wanting the first arrest I ever have to be over a seatbelt. No, I was not polite to the officer afterwords either.

So back on topic, I really think Ca is a letter of the law state.

I never understood how people could actually hate law enforcement before today. One guy trying to be tough and teach me a lesson really leaves a bad taste in your mouth for everybody else.

I am willing to accept citations for things that I do wrong. Raising revenue off a broken seatbelt, in someone else's truck, is another thing.

imported post

hammerhands32 wrote:

I am willing to accept citations for things that I do wrong. Raising revenue off a broken seatbelt, in someone else's truck, is another thing.

Click to expand...

[sarcasm]The seatbelt law is there for your protection. Of course, I'm assuming you left out the part where the officers didn't let you drive away without a seatbelt, but instead offered you a ride home so you would be safely belted in... [/sarcasm]

They don't care about your safety. The state needs revenue. I'd say just about any law passed in the last 100 years (maybe longer) is about revenue generation or controlling the sheeple.

I wonder what our founding fathers would do if they were alive and facing the government we face today...

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

I wonder what our founding fathers would do if they were alive and facing the government we face today...

Click to expand...

second revolutionary war....

imported post

oilfieldtrash11 wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

I wonder what our founding fathers would do if they were alive and facing the government we face today...

Click to expand...

second revolutionary war....

Click to expand...

Whileone would like to believe that...the truth isif the founders came back todaymost would not accept them and would view them as "radical" except the few, and that wouldn't be enough.

The system that the founders put in place was not meant for the minority to abolish it, in which today we are the minority.

I only say this because I believe this system is the best system on earth and the founders were fully aware of the direction the country would go.

We must give the "liberal left" all the rope and hope thatthey effect "change" by showing their own base thattheir plan doesn't work. (I hopeno-more thanfour years)

That is what the other side has done, "taken over state-levelfights with a vengeance" while our side just watched.

Remember the TV commercial with Indian Joe and he is looking at all the trash and pollution, then a the close-up shot of the tears running down his face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA

Picture George Washington standing there listening to our present day leaders with tears in his eyes.

All that being said, "our side" has no leadership and we must organize and start fighting,especially state level politics and local municipalities.

P.S. California is a letter of the law state and the bastards keep writing more laws to take yourrights away. Confirm, just look at the codes written on guns in California.

imported post

hammerhands32 wrote:

I sign the ticket, not wanting the first arrest I ever have to be over a seatbelt. No, I was not polite to the officer afterwords either.

I am willing to accept citations for things that I do wrong. Raising revenue off a broken seatbelt, in someone else's truck, is another thing.

Click to expand...

What really cracks me up about this type of scenario is that its soooo blatently not about safety - its about revenue.

If it was about safety they wouldn't have given you a ticket and then let you drive off.

imported post

The question asked in the first post of this thread would be quite unnecessary if we legislated the proscription of only acts of aggression. "Spirit vs letter" only matters when law seeks to prohibit the nonaggressive.

When the crime is murder, how often is it asked "Spirit or letter of the law?"

imported post

hammerhands32 wrote:

I never understood how people could actually hate law enforcement before today.

Click to expand...

Now you know.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=21491&forum_id=12&jump_to=396231#p396231