memes

Modern law is pretty much what happens when people let themselves be fooled by a smart psychopath.

"Murder is not allowed."

"Well, I didn't 'murder' that guy. I paid someone else to do it, so they're guilty and not me."

What should have happened is it's the same thing and the guy answers for it accordingly. Instead, people got fooled by a sufficiently plausible argument. And then we started the infinite loop of specifying every single tiny thing separately, ending with a set of laws that only professional lawyers after years of training can read and comprehend (still not always).

Only a handful of people stopped to think about teaching at least some basics of this insane law to people, e.g., as a subject in school. But other than that it's, of course: spend every second of your life learning what's allowed and what's not, or pay for your ignorance. And don't worry, you'll still get screwed over by a billionaire with 50 full-time lawyers.

Hey, that's not true. It's an excuse for cops. It's only ordinary people who It's not an excuse for

@grok is what I'm about to do illegal?

I used to watch a lot of traffic court videos as background noise. Normally it was people who knew they were guilty showing up with lame excuses.

One time though there was a guy who got a ticket for rolling a stop sign. The issue was it was a very poorly placed sign that was ridiculously far back from the intersection. The guy had fully stopped at the sign, pulled up to the intersection and slowed down to check and then rolled through it. The cop had reluctantly agreed that is what happened once the guy laid it out.

Despite the cop admitting it was a bad ticket since the guy hadn't actually rolled through the sign, the prosecutor pulled up the law which said a car must stop at a stop sign, or in an intersection without one must slow and yield to traffic, and tried to argue that because the intersection had a stop sign that the guy in the car was required to fully stop both at the poorly placed sign AND at the intersection. He went back and forth with the judge for like ten minutes while subtly misquoting the text of the law rather than just letting it go. After both the guy with the ticket and the cop both spoke up the way too long proceeding finally broke in the guy's favor.

The total court appearance was like 45 minutes, with much of it spent with a judge and prosecutor talking through a stop sign law. If it was so ambiguous that professional legal experts need to talk it through then it is absurd to ticket a person in the moment for making the wrong choice.

TBF tho, like 9/10ths of that is about Property.

God damn, I never really thought about that. I don't even know where in the hell to get the books do average libraries carry them? And once you get into actually reading the statutes, theyre hard as hell to understand.

They don't really go into that much detail about law in school. And asking your parents about it for the most part is pretty useless.

But what good is it to know that breathing is illegal? (exhaling is illegal in the state of Tenessee since it disperses CO2 into the atmosphere)

Wheel Of Time or Mission Earth?

Any law people please correct me, but this must be less of a problem in civil law in comparison to common law, right? As all decisions are derived primarily from the relevant codes

Actually for some laws ignorance of the law is a legitimate legal defense. Famously in case of Hillary Clinton's emails, she couldn't be charged because they couldn't prove she knew of the specific statute and that she'd purposefully kept her emails in a separate server. Ignorance of the law saved her there.

@The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world I was just talking about this with a friend; there are so many that it seems inevitable to get caught up -- if pursued.

Even better, the Supreme Court rules a long time ago that police CAN be ignorant of the law. So fuck you if you don’t know the law, unless you are a cop enforcing it

Cops:

Cops when you cite law: "What are you? A lawyer? Fuck off"