It's No Excuse

Perhaps, the law enforcement officials are unable to comprehend the millions of words of incomprehensible legislation passed by our elected representatives. They also deserve less regulation and more common sense application of republican and democratic political theories.

It is a legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, given the size of both federal code as well as that of any given state's code, is it possible for a person to know every possible law so as to not run afoul of it?

I like the idea of having a revolution every few generation so as to reset the number of laws and regulations back to zero.

pssst..Hey, Cops...if you violate the rights like this of some thug or someone violent, you will get sued and possibly reprimanded; but the public will be forgiving.
If you violate the rights like this of law-abiding Joe Citizen, you will get sued, reprimanded,...and most important of all, public opinion will turn against you and the police in general.
You will not like that outcome. The police administration will like it even less.

Remember who you work for.

I've been a lawyer for 34 years, and the idea that ignorance of the law is no excuse is the biggest joke since, oh, we elected President Carter.

I spent 10 years working in DC for Interior Department on a tiny niche issue: federal wildlife law. At the end of a decade, I knew pretty well the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Recreation Act, the NWS System Act, and sections 4, 7, and part of 9 of the Endangered Species Act. And a little bit about section 10(j). And parts of the Eagle Act.

Of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Wild Horses and Burros Act, the rest of the Endangered Species Act, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and probably a few statutes that I can't recall, let alone their regulations and court interpretations, I knew nothing. There's just a limit on how you can learn, working 40-50 hours a week for ten years. And this was just a tiny niche of federal jurisdiction.

Add to that the fact that courts commonly read into a statute that which is not there, or read out of it that which is not, and it is utterly impossible for any human to know even a tiny part of federal law, let alone state and local law. Understand, every day the Federal Register came out with, oh, a hundred or two hundred pages of new regulations.

Two of us were given a special project to answer a simple question of whether, when federal land is given a certain designation, does it acquire special water rights? A yes or no answer. I think it took two months of research to answer (including research at the National Archives).

If you recall Heinlein's exposition in Starship Troopers, officers (who obviously carried more authority than average soldiers) saw proportionally more severe penalties for transgressions. I've long thought the police and Federal law enforcement officers should also "enjoy" far greater penalties for abuses of law than mere "civilians". It would be one way to balance authority and responsibility, without which there is no civic virtue.

Why isn't this a criminal act by the officer? His obvious lie re the laser pointer shows awareness that he was out of line to arrest this man- else why make up a lie?

He should be prosecuted criminally, fired, subjected to substantial civil liability, and the dept should also be subject to large liability. The officer disgraced his badge, it is no small thing, nothing he deserves a pass on for his service. He did it no doubt out of a reasonable belief that he could push that guy around with impunity AS AN OFFICER.

He and his peers need to learn different.

Dave Hardy:

That's the best illustration I've ever seen as to how much the government has spiraled out of control.

Far too many lawmakers and law enforcement personnel have forgotten who is working for whom.

But things are so far gone by now that I'm afraid something drastic will need to happen to right the situation. God help us, but it has come to that.

bob wrote:

Why isn't this a criminal act by the officer? His obvious lie re the laser pointer shows awareness that he was out of line to arrest this man- else why make up a lie?

He should be prosecuted criminally, fired, subjected to substantial civil liability, and the dept should also be subject to large liability. The officer disgraced his badge, it is no small thing, nothing he deserves a pass on for his service.

I totally agree with you, Bob, about the egregious behavior of this officer. By all means, let's throw the book at him. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The only people who will be held liable for this will be the taxpayers who will have to pay for any judgements coming out of this. The doofus officer himself, and his supervisors, will get off scotfree and probably will even be promoted. Don't you just love "public service"?

"It is absolutely, totally and completely unacceptable for police officers to use the authority conferred by their badges to violate people's rights in this manner ..."

This statement is self-evidently false. If society felt this were true, then there would be written, legal penalties for those times when the officers of the government violate their oathes.

There aren't.

The police routinely steal from the people they police the rights conferred upon them by the Constitution.

Why do you think we have Miranda warnings?

Almost every aspect of police procedure exists because once you give a human power over other humans, they are corrupted by it completely.

And yet, when police violate these rights, which they still do every single day, they are not themselves hauled up before the tribunals of justice.

And that's why this officer acts with impunity against the citizen taking his photograph. He believes that he can do so without repercussion.

Why does he believe this? Because he does it every single day.

Friend,

I can see your error. The police officer was merely doing what the Supreme Court does - making it up as they go along. Really if you leave the making of laws to the legislative branch it is obvious that the masses will continue to annoy the elites with their misbehavior.

We have it on the authority of Paul Krugman, world-renown blow hard, that Americans suffer from too little regulation. Why? Because even though the Congress has allowed regulatory offices to invent laws and the courts are using advanced thinking from Belgium the American people continue in their anarchic ways.

The policeman was thinking outside of the box, trying to help with this rampage of lawlessness. He was not allowing some old piece of paper like the Constitution written in a long-forgotten language to hinder his exercise of power. He should be praised, not condemned, for his committment to "change".

Remember only the little people like you and me can commit crimes. Our masters can always figure out why the rules don't apply to them.

I'm going to cut the officer some slack.

Police work is dangerous at best. If he thought he saw a laser pointer... fine. His job requires that he assert his authority as he deems necessary... that is what keeps him (in part) from being killed on the job.

BUT... I also agree that his attempt to bully a citizen is unacceptable. Don't throw the book at him. I think a pamphlet will do. (Perhaps the constitution for starters.)

The CITY however needs to take corrective measures ASAP.

Oh... and power to the citizens that stand up for their (and our) rights!

I've long thought the police and Federal law enforcement officers should also "enjoy" far greater penalties for abuses of law than mere "civilians". It would be one way to balance authority and responsibility, without which there is no civic virtue.

I agree, which is one of the reasons that I thought that Bill Clinton was rightfully impeached, and should have been removed from office.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

I call this the "Lawyer Full Employment Concept."

Don't you know, before you do even the simpliest thing, you're supposed to hire a lawyer to tell you what is or isn't legal. There are reportedly over 1 million lawyers in the US. That's 1 out of every 300 men, women, and children in the country. Got to keep them busy somehow.

As for cops, there are a lot of good ones out there but the career field does seem to attract more than it's share of bullies and crooks.

The problem is that the prosecuting authorities consider the cops to be part of the "team," and they REALLY have to step out of line in order to be prosecuted for behavior that would get Joe Blow a ten year vacation in the pen. I don't know how the local District Attorney got his position, but if he is an elected official the voters need to put pressure on him to prosecute the "public servant" in question.

Perhaps this is the perfect opportunity for Mr. Conover to invoke:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

"I like the idea of having a revolution every few generation so as to reset the number of laws and regulations back to zero."

I've always thought the Congress should be limited to a certain number of words, like ten thousand, or a certain number of laws. After they hit this limit they can't pass any more laws.

Also I think we ought to have some kind of sunset provision. For example every ten years Congress has to revote to have a Department of XXX." If they can't muster enough votes the department is closed.

Scott Conover does not even need "ignorance of the law be an excuse". As far as I can tell, he did not break any laws -- the policeman made it up.

All I know is I got hooked on the The Shield and now I look at the police in a whole new way.