"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

[Rageaholic]

I. Hate. This. Expression.

It's one of the many snarky expressions that piss me off. I imagine cops especially love this one because they can get away with picking on people who made a few harmless mistakes. But because their mistake broke teh lawls cops feel morally justified in being punitive dicks.

And another thing, I hate how when ever someone complains about police being dicks, there's always someone who (either jokingly or serious) has to act like you're hiding something. No, I'm not hiding something. I never even had negative encounters with cops outside of a few traffic tickets (which I admit were my fault). But when we hear of cops going overboard with unnecessary punitive actions, there's always some people who treat those who aren't 100% pro cop with suspicion. And I'm sick of it. Just because they're cops doesn't mean they're always right. And sometimes the law needs to be changed. We should be able to question these things without being made out to be criminals. Otherwise, we can kiss our democracy goodbye.

[Pixilated]

When I was a reporter, I did the court/cop beat, so I got to meet two levels of police (town and provincial). It is a tough job and I couldn't do it, not without reincarnation.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the cops who do their best to do a good job, but there is no question that there are idiots who get into the job for all the wrong reasons. They are the ones who make the headlines and who deserve whatever they get. I covered one lovely case: a local boy was in the provincial forces, came home for a hockey tournament weekend ... and ran his pickup into a bridge abutment. Why? Because he was drunk as a lord, that's why. He had a passenger in the truck, who was damn near killed.

The provincials were first on the scene, and the rumour mill had it that he tried to get them to help him hide the booze bottles. They basically told him to f*** off; none of them were about to watch their own careers implode because he was stupid. We covered the court case ... and unlike most court coverage, this went on the front page, with a photo of the guy coming out of the courthouse.

Odd thing was: the provincials had no problem with the coverage. Their attitude was that he got himself into the mess and he could cope with the results. It was the town cops -- the younger ones, anyway -- who weren't happy about it. Apparently they were his buddies. But there were no repercussions.

Cops are not perfect, no more than any other profession. And they shouldn't be automatically seen as such. You are right: when it gets to the point where you're not allowed to question those who enforce the law, or hold them accountable, or when they are excused for the most obvious abuses of power ... things are well past the point of "getting really bad."

[fireheart17]

The best part is when tourists try to pull this shit.

One of the lovely things that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade put on their website was a "Know Before You Go" thing aka TravelWatch. They've got each country listed, given them a rating based on current events over there (or ongoing ones) as to whether it's OK to go or not.
Then they've listed what the embassy can or cannot do and several of the laws present in a country under certain headings. (For instance, healthcare, divorce, accommodation etc)

Yet you STILL hear stories of people getting in trouble overseas....and the real kicker is that it's for MOST of the things you hear about on the website! On top of that, you can register your details with them so that if you do get caught in a precarious situation (political or environmental) you can let loved ones know you're OK via the government.

[BlaqueKatt]

I. Hate. This. Expression.

It's one of the many snarky expressions that piss me off. I imagine cops especially love this one because they can get away with picking on people who made a few harmless mistakes.

not like anyone has EVER attempted to claim they didn't know rape, murder, or assault was illegal(because in the place they're from it's fine), oh yeah they have and do. Guess if anyone doesn't know the law/bother to find out/lies to try and get out of consequences we should just let them free?

[Greenday]

I use that phrase a fair amount, but usually it involves somebody doing something incredibly stupid and just trying to get away with it by claiming they didn't actually know it was against the law. It's not the police's job to go to every person and read to them every single law in existence. It's all available for everyone to look at.

[Rageaholic]

not like anyone has EVER attempted to claim they didn't know rape, murder, or assault was illegal(because in the place they're from it's fine), oh yeah they have and do. Guess if anyone doesn't know the law/bother to find out/lies to try and get out of consequences we should just let them free?

I knew it was a matter of time before this was brought up. Of course this defense shouldn't apply to people who rape and murder. Those are not the "harmless mistakes" I was talking about. Harmless mistakes are things like forgetting to pay a fine, not knowing you needed a license to walk your dog in your neighborhood, and several other ordnances that cops bust people for. In those cases, ignorance of the law IS a valid excuse.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I might nitpick the fact that many times people will use ignorance of the law in the case of rape not as a legal defense but as an explanation. It usually occurs in cases where their partner is intoxicated to the point they can't give legal consent and they don't realize what the law is in that case.

On the topic, "Cops" just tend to be a political football. I get what you're saying about harmless crimes, but honestly the entire system is predicated on jurisprudence and statutes. A crime is a crime is a crime, although the punishments will be more or less severe deciding on which one. I don't quite understand the rationale behind expecting a police officer who is doing his job to let someone off after breaking an ordinance because we view it as "harmless".

I actually have the opposite contention. And that is, things would be better and people would be more politically active and responsible if cops enforced every law without exception. In an area where the legal system is choked with illegal dog walking? Advocate awareness or strike the law. I don't mind a cop issuing warnings but I think expecting them to just walk past actual violations is a bad precedent. That makes Cops the arbiters of the law and not the courts.

I know in reality it would be impossible to have universal enforcement (how much time do they have?), but the pick and choose nature of enforcement massively contributes to their negative perception. By nature they can look capricious because they are and we get mad when they're not. Eventually we stop feeling lucky when they look the other way and get mad when they don't instead.

[guywithashovel]

When I was in college, I had a professor who got slapped with this phrase.

He had gotten pulled over and given a ticket for not moving into the other lane when passing a highway patrol car that was pulled over alongside the highway. In that area, the law said that if you start to approach a patrol car pulled over, you're supposed to pull over into the other lane to give the patrol car room. If you can't get into the other lane because of traffic, you're supposed to slow down to either ten or twenty miles below the speed limit.

Well, the signs along the highway that remind people of this law said (at that time) MOVE OVER, SLOW DOWN. My professor had taken that to meaning that he could do one or the other, so when approaching a pulled over patrol car, he merely slowed down. He got said ticket. Apparently, you're only supposed to do the "slow down" option if you can't move over.

When he went to court, he took a picture of the sign, claiming that it was misleading. The judge slammed the gavel down and said, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it! Fine is $150 and we don't accept checks."

Pissed. him. off.

[s_stabeler]

I might nitpick the fact that many times people will use ignorance of the law in the case of rape not as a legal defense but as an explanation. It usually occurs in cases where their partner is intoxicated to the point they can't give legal consent and they don't realize what the law is in that case.

that is a mistake of fact, and is sometimes an excuse. (although not in a statuatory rape case.) For example, it is a defense ( albeit an extremely rare one) to speeding thta somebody had nicked the sign and you didn't know the speed limit had dropped. ( for example, if you went from a 30 limit to a 20 limit with no sign, you can beat the ticket because a reasonable person would assume the limit was unchanged. there is an exception for if you go that way all the time, because then you should know. Another example is reciving stolen property. If you can prove you had no reason to assume it was stolen, you will not be prosecuted. ( you will, however, lose the item)

[freeatlast]

A couple of years ago, an Indianapolis cop hit 3 motorcycles while on duty killing one of them and severely injuring the other two. He was taken by other cops to a walk-on clinic for a blood draw which showed his blood alcohol at more than twice the legal limit. They also assisted him in removing a duffel bag from his wrecked police car which it is suspected contained alcohol. They later tried to have the results of the blood draw thrown out because the walk-in clinic was not the specific one they were supposed to use. Seems to me like they specifically took him someplace other than where they were required to so that the results could not be used against him. Funny though - the judge OK'd the results from the clinic. Oh BTW - he was recently arrested on DUI. Wonder if he expected his buddies to help him out again.....

[Rageaholic]

When I was in college, I had a professor who got slapped with this phrase.

Judge sounded like a power tripping asshole (not surprising, most judges are).

That's a perfect example of why ignorance CAN be a good defense. No one is perfect, no one can know every little law.

[HYHYBT]

On the subject of road signs... I wish more of them were duplicated in the median/divider or on the other side of the road when there's more than one lane per direction. It's all too easy never even to have the opportunity to see a sign if there's a large vehicle between you and it. (Moving over to pass a trailer truck while the new speed limit sign is too far ahead to see with the truck in the way; by the time you've passed enough of the truck you can see signs on that side again, the one you needed to see is behind you.)

[protege]

For example, it is a defense ( albeit an extremely rare one) to speeding thta somebody had nicked the sign and you didn't know the speed limit had dropped. ( for example, if you went from a 30 limit to a 20 limit with no sign, you can beat the ticket because a reasonable person would assume the limit was unchanged.

I got nailed in a similar situation. If you ever exit I-79 near Conway (PA), be careful. The two-lane road is posted 40mph...but changes to 25mph (with no signs, I should add!) once you reach Route 65. Imagine my surprise, when I'm doing the legal 40mph...and I get nailed by a state trooper. While I'm getting my ass fined ($120), several other cars got pulled over as well. Turns out that "because of complaints" the state police had a nice little racket going. Instead of busting me for "speeding," ($200), the trooper said that I was getting fined for the equivalent of running a stop sign.

I chose not to fight it, since not only was it my word again his that there weren't signs...but also that the local district magistrate had a serious hard-on for speeding through his district. From what I understand, there's no way I'd win--several people have said that his attitude is "if you get pulled over, you're guilty." I would have not only lost...but had to explain why the charge was lessened. Instead of paying $120 and not getting it reported to my insurance company... I would have been dinged $200, had my insurance notified...plus I'd been billed for court costs. Not worth it, IMHO.

So if I ever choose to watch trains around Conway Yard, I take the long way over there. More traffic, but less likely I have to deal with corrupt officials.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I. Hate. This. Expression.

I don't.

It's one of the many snarky expressions that piss me off. I imagine cops especially love this one because they can get away with picking on people who made a few harmless mistakes. But because their mistake broke teh lawls cops feel morally justified in being punitive dicks.

Let me ask you this. If you noticed that your street doesn't have a speed limit sign and that someone decided to fly down that street as fast as they wanted and ended up hitting someone you care for and they said "But I didn't know the speed limit wasn't 50 MPH"...

Would *you* accept that their ignorance of the law (the speed limit) was an excuse for them pelting 2,000+ pounds of automobile down a residential street filled with residents of said street? Would you say "Oh well, they didn't know the speed limit so that excuses them from any responsibility for slamming into my child while they were on their bike?

Or would you actually want the police to arrest the person and cart them off to face the judge for their actions?

And another thing, I hate how when ever someone complains about police being dicks, there's always someone who (either jokingly or serious) has to act like you're hiding something.

I'm not going to imply that you're hiding anything or that you're guilty of committing any criminal acts, but you're a regular here. You know that for every one person or group that makes headlines (crooked cop, pedophile priests, sucky customers) there are many others that don't get the notice.

The police are like that. For everyone that makes the news for abusing his/her power, there are plenty who do an admirable job of serving and protecting the citizenry of the area they're assigned to patrol.

But when we hear of cops going overboard with unnecessary punitive actions, there's always some people who treat those who aren't 100% pro cop with suspicion.

I'm pro-police. However I know that humanity is a mix of good, bad, and indifferent. That there are good police officers, bad ones, and ones that just muddle through their days doing a largely thankless job.

I know you're frustrated at the ones that are the baddies, most of us are. But the simple fact of the matter is that the police are a much needed part of our lives and things would be far worse without them.

And I'm sick of it. Just because they're cops doesn't mean they're always right.

And just because *some* of them are bad doesn't mean that they're *all* wrong.

And sometimes the law needs to be changed. We should be able to question these things without being made out to be criminals. Otherwise, we can kiss our democracy goodbye.

And here's where we get to the nitty-gritty of the argument. Yes sometimes the laws need to be changed. But until the majority of the populace stand up and do what is needed to change said laws, they are still the laws. Just because one doesn't agree with a law, doesn't mean that they get to violate that law.

Case in point. I don't agree with the laws against Cannabis use. With all the decriminalizing of it that is going on (people getting "must appear" tickets for possession instead of going to jail, etc) I feel that they should just legalize it and have done.

But until that day occurs, I'm not going to buy, possess, grow, smoke or otherwise ingest it into my body. I will obey the law even though I don't agree with it.

The law is the law. Our government was created with provisions to enact new laws, remove ones that are not applicable anymore, and to change existing ones to deal with new but still related situations. But we don't get to say "I don't agree with this law and so I'm going to violate it" and expect to get away with it.

And I'm sorry, but just because one can't be bothered to learn the laws of the land, does not excuse them from obeying said laws. To do otherwise invites anarchy.

[fireheart17]

One rule that ALWAYS makes me laugh is the rule regarding P-Plates.

I should explain, to be on your P-Plates in Australia is kind of like a halfway point between your learners and a full licence. You can drive without needing someone else in the car with you and some other conditions depending on state, but you're still not allowed to use a handsfree device (GPS devices are OK), drive with alcohol in your system full stop or obviously take drugs. In most cases you still need to display a P-Plate.

Now, the P-Plates in my state and a number of others look like this:
For a couple of other states, they look like this:

After a certain period of time, you can go on your P2's, which generally involves a relaxation of the rules on P1's. In South Australia, you do not need to display your plates. In nearly all other states, you need to display one of these:

You would think, that if you were going to be MOVING interstate for a period of time (ie uni study), you would have read up on the road rules for that state. THoroughly. Just to be aware of what you need to do regarding documentation and whatnot.

Surprisingly, the complainers about those plates have been few. The complainers come from idiots who were SA BORN AND RAISED and somehow think they can use the white-on-red or the green plates. Even though it is in your driver logbook. Even though your driving instructor would have said something (particularly if you were taking the VORT test*).

*=there are two ways in my state to get your P-Plates. You can either do a competency-based system, where you are marked as you go and then do 2 short drives for your final test (#1 is basically your maneuver test, #2 is a general road test ie do you stop at lights?), or you can do the Vehicle On Road Test, which basically does all of it in one shot. Most people tend to do the competencies, while those who screwed up on their P-Plates generally do the test so they get it out the way.