Coming up in the distance…America!
It is worth noting that this was around when the English Civil War was happening.
“What good are rights if you don’t know you have them?”
Um, how long did it take for the USA to get the Miranda rule?
And, this seems like a good answer to that previous discussion about strikers being arrested for blocking a bridge, when they weren’t aware that they weren’t permitted to do so.
or ever intended to do so. Where did it say they were going to stay on the bridge. In the picture you can see city hall or whatever on an island on the other side of the bay.
That wasn’t about not knowing your rights. It was about ignorance of the law, which is not an excuse. And apparently blocking the bridge with foot traffic at all was illegal, regardless of how long they intended to stay there.
That part of the situation wasn’t presented with much nuance, since it wasn’t the point, so we can’t know what they should or shouldn’t have been expected to know. However, as a general rule, if you’re attending a civil protest of that nature, it should go without saying that you don’t have the right to block entry or passage to or through public places, which protesters have at times tried to do.
So, 10,000 pages of federal law:
The 2015 edition, Volume 6, Page 25, line 13: Which sub-section is it?
Well, I’ll even settle for what it’s talking about.
Ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse for obvious, normal things: E.G.: Murder. Building a bomb in an apartment building. Rape. Killing someone’s pet. Breaking into someone else’s home.
But not knowing the tax code, say? I’d give that a pass. (Despite my bias: every few years or so, someone has the bright idea to have experts write up tax returns. They ask three experts, they get three DIFFERENT returns, from professionals. Note that not reporting income doesn’t apply; misclassifying it, maybe. )
“Ignorance” of the law IS an excuse, actually, when the whole purpose of the law is to confuse, misdirect, and protect those in power. And when even LAWYERS, who go to school, can get it “wrong” (They may not be wrong, it might be decided on appeal that they did something “wrong.”) Mnd, that’s only FEDERAL law. State, Local, and Town laws can all be different from one to another, and often are. E.G., gun permits. (Ignore the gun issue, focus on the permitting rules.) In New York City? Forget it, unless you’re the anointed like the Mayor – who also has armed security at all times. In Kansas, it’s “What permit?”
(General response, Kansas City KS is different again…)
How would you know you cannot own nunchuks in Massachusetts unless you looked it up? Or that you cannot have a boa constrictor (sold at local pet stores. Legal to sell, but not legal to own without special permit. Like Dwarf russian Hamsters aren’t legal to own in New Jersey, without a special permit. But you can get a few hundred long or short-haired hamsters of other varieties, no problem.
Did you know it’s illegal to “have relations” with a cow in Massachusetts? That it IS legal to marry your sister in (IIRC) West Virginia? (I don’t know the details, but it might be an allowance for “integrated” families, where they are actually not blood related. Or maybe not. But it’s been defined as LEGAL in some cases, anyway…)
“Ignorance is no excuse” was OK when the laws focused on protecting basic human and property rights. Now that we are all slaves on the tax plantation, and the objective is to extract money from us? You CAN’T know the law, or how it applies – because you’re not SUPPOSED to. You’re supposed to break some statute, get a ticket, pay the ticket, maybe go to prison (so you lose rights, sometimes permanently), and you become a ward of the state (including on parole, when a pig can kick in your door when they want to to make sure you’re meeting terms of parole. Including 3 AM with SWAT. “Because.” )
And then there’s the problem that piggy is now allowed to “believe” that “X” is a law, and as long as he acted “in good faith,” BELIEVING the law was as he articulated, everything’s OK, and anything found in his search is admissible. E.G., officer thought you had to have BOTH headlights working, so he demanded to search the car, found drugs. Search stands even though he violated the law (it states you need to have at least one functional headlight). But he HONESTLY BELIEVED it was TWO functioning headlights, and therefore, he had PC to search the car. (I.E., it was bullshit by a “LawNOrder” judge to make sure the evil druggie paid for his sins. Rights be damned. And it was decided that way by SCOTUS – who has also decided cops have no duty of care to protect us, or to risk their lives. )
Besides, do you actually KNOW it’s illegal to have a lawn longer than 6″? Or that it’s illegal to NOT immunize your cat against Influenza? To have a Dwarf Russian Hamster? To have a milk snake? To take a stone from the riverbed of a national park? To pick up a feather in a national park and remove it from the park?
To remove the catalytic converter from your exhaust? To change out the ECU of your car? TO REFUSE VACCINATIONS (which YOU must pay for)? It’s a “public Health Issue.” (Your unvaccinated child is somehow a threat to those who have been vaccinated, and should thus be immune – except the recent vaccines don’t work, NFG. They DO contain known toxins and poisons, however – formaldehyde, thimerosol – contains mercury…. Right now, if the filling in my tooth were dropped in Lake Quanapowitt, with NO OTHER contaminants – they’d close the lake. But it’s legal to force us to use CFL bulbs, and get metal amalgam fillings…)
Law is a set of liars arguing who can make a more convincing lie based on prior fictions of the system – which, if these fictions don’t meet the judge’s confirmation bias, will be ignored. (With apologies to the author, though I expect he’d confirm it’s a kabuki theater, generally.)
Heh. Old English Lord looks so happy at the start there.