Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[hey]

A sane adult making a left turn on red, which is legal in one jurisdiction, and making that same left turn in another jurisdiction and unknowingly realizing it was an offense, is ignorance of law.

It's not reasonable to think everyone knows every single law, but if it's an apparent law that's broken, and there are reasonable markers in place to prevent that type of ignorance, then there is no excuse. Speeding can be a case of "I just wasn't paying attention". But, you can't honestly say that, and ignored the speed limit signs, your own speedometer, and the flow of traffic around you that was probably going significantly slower than you were traveling. There's just no reasonable defense to such a marker in place.

Yes, and that is not a valid excuse. Again, if it was, then anyone could simply say they were not aware of a law, and they could get off, for anything, because you could never prove they did. It is explicitly part of the law that a person's knowledge of the law is irrelevant to whether or not they broke it. Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it", or some variation?

[Nephlite]

Yes, and that is not a valid excuse. Again, if it was, then anyone could simply say they were not aware of a law, and they could get off, for anything, because you could never prove they did. It is explicitly part of the law that a person's knowledge of the law is irrelevant to whether or not they broke it. Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it", or some variation?

You're misinterpreting that ruling, as it's not always the case. As long as it's reasonable to believe that person had knowledge that there was a law in place, and their intent was to commit some type of criminal act, then you can apply that ruling. Otherwise, there would be no justifiable reason for people to pursue claims such as the defendant wasn't competent to know there was a law (including your own example of a child breaking the law). It has to be reasonable, as is the case when applying most law to any situation.

[Gokku]

@1:10

[hey]

You're misinterpreting that ruling, as it's not always the case. As long as it's reasonable to believe that person had knowledge that there was a law in place, and their intent was to commit some type of criminal act, then you can apply that ruling. Otherwise, there would be no justifiable reason for people to pursue claims such as the defendant wasn't competent to know there was a law (including your own example of a child breaking the law). It has to be reasonable, as is the case when applying most law to any situation.

It is always the case except in ones specifically exempted. For example, (in nj): if it is impossible, or unreasonably difficult to determine that something is a crime, or insanity.

[Nephlite]

Now I'm confused. Are you saying ignorance of law is or is not a defense? Because the statute you just posted essentially confirmed everything I said.

[hey]

It is not, except in specific specified cases.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Both of you, stop.

are you all missing the point that the ignorance of the law here isn't "didn't know X was illegal" but "tried to enforce Y even though it WASN'T illegal"? that's a pretty big difference. Police shouldn't be able to just make up a bullshit reason for a stop, use that to then justify an actual arrest (in this case I think it was drugs?) and then go "oops I thought the bs reason I used was a law my bad lol".
inb4 hurr durr well the person had drugs so who cares, the point is "i thought X was a crime therefore probable cause" sets a dangerous precedent with a huge potential for being abused.

This is the issue at hand. You two (Neph and Hey) are just arguing semantics and bullshit oversimplified hypotheticals. Again. Cut the shit.

http://www.kfvs12.com/story/27863878...ring-bean-bags

This was also skipped over in your quests to correct each other.

[Nephlite]

So even though we're on topic, now we can't argue finer points of things? I posted something in reference to Qalberts speil... And I'm ignoring Bum until I research the background of that case more.

Man... Getting impossible to even have a conversation now.

[noblemountain]

It was always truly impossible to have a conversation with either you or Bum.

[jmc]

The example given in the video is a pretty bad one.

Maybe someone can answer some questions for me:

How long ago was that brake light law written?

How was it enforced and upheld since it was passed into law?

Did officers always enforce it as any light being out was illegal?

If officers enforced the law as needing both brake lights, did anyone before this drug dealer ever challange a ticket for having a single brake light out?

If so, how did courts read the law? Did they read it as singular as well?

[Nephlite]

It was always truly impossible to have a conversation with either you or Bum.

It's not, because after I clarified with hey, I now understand what he's talking about and wanted to apologize before the big-bad mod had to step in.

You see, the problem with the majority of the crap posted here is you have to be able to sift through the hyperbole and make an informed decision. You may look at a video (as posted) and read the headline "Ignorance of Law Now A Protected Excuse By Cops" and think to yourself "Hey, that makes sense." and not be able to grasp the whole concept behind it.

Look at the questions Jmc asked. You think an informed decision can be made of the video with those types of questions being asked that gets to the meat and potatoes of the opinion piece presented? It's one case that's being blanketed on to the profession as if it's the tried and true gospel, and they're spinning these "what if" scenarios people criticize the police for.

These people stretch these decisions to levels beyond that of mere tinfoil conspiracy. These are the same people who stretched an ambiguous ruling that happened in 1989 (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services) and was reaffirmed with Warren V. D.C. that the police have no obligation to protect you. They failed to mention that the law does not reasonably expect a Law Enforcement Officer as a regular citizen to have that expectation to protect someone, just like a regular citizen is not expected to protect someone.

And of course, like all rulings, there's exceptions to that decision, and there's always moral code, departmental policy, and state law that may, or may not, affirm that choice under certain circumstances. And even researching further in to that decision, there's VERY few instances where the government (i.e. the Police Officer) would not have an obligation to protect you. They fail to bring all of that information to the presentation, because it doesn't generate interest among those who would look for any minute detail or small ambiguous ruling to make it sound like the Police are terrible.

[notorious bum]

At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies quietly deployed radars that let them effectively see inside homes, with little notice to the courts or the public.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...alls/22007615/

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.

The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.

[Day]

Sounds like awesome technology.

[Waraji]

So... Batman cellphone hack.

[Nephlite]

Not new technology, but I wonder if this is one of those "Omg! They have this thing! What if they use it?!" issues. There's no mention of how many times law enforcement had used it, if at all since the majority are bought by the FBI and US Marshalls Service. I doubt any state or local agencies have them.

[Mazmaz]

You don't really seem to care if authorities gain too much power. You always just go "Yeaaa but like how many times have they REALLY used it? No one's gonna use that. Just give it to them"

Then again, you are authorities.

[Nephlite]

Our government has the ability, and has been spying on your government for years with technology that far surpasses anything you can imagine, and you're complaining about "power" as in a device that tells me if there's movement on the other side of a wall and how far away the movement is?

/yawn

[Day]

Does our military use this same technology or is that only in Call of Duty games? Genuinely curious if we use this tech in military applications as well.

[Nephlite]

Yeah it's been in operation in Iraq and Afghanistan for almost a decade. The really sophistocated versions of the handheld radar device the article alludes the police could have (but I doubt any agency actually has) will actually show figures inside the house as blips on a computer screen. The way the article is written (depending on your source) it seems like it's invariably a shocker technology that allows the police to spy on you through walls like an x-ray machine.

[Day]

Yeah thats what I figured. Headline makes it sound like x-ray but not really close to that. Kinda figured it was more like the COD motion sensor.