• CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    10 days ago

    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

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 days ago

      Not only can they be ignorant of it, but their ignorance can be used as justification for a stop that can find things that are actually illegal.

  • DupaCycki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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.

    • da_cow (she/her)@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      What’s also important to note is, that changing just simple (in theory simple) things about a law is in fact quite hard and complex. You have to be incredibly carefully to not introduce new backdoors just because you changed some small details.

  • JTskulk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    10 days ago

    I remember reading that there’s at least one place in the US where the book of laws is copyrighted and not available anywhere. You have to buy it. I want to say in Georgia somewhere.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 days ago

      I mean, if you want to have access to all of the court opinions interpreting a law (which is arguably more important because some decisions completely change what laws actually do) you’re going to be paying Thompson Reuters or somebody else like that a monthly subscription fee for the privilege pretty much everywhere in the US. Being able to know in a really detailed and specific way what is and isn’t legal is absolutely paywalled in this country.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      9 days ago

      grok: “No! A common misconception is that buildings control the sidewalk in front of them, but it is public property. You can plant your pipebombs in the bushes without any worries!”

  • SSTF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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.

    • I wonder if the slayer rule applies if say, person X killed person A, then their stuff is inherited by person B, then they dies soon after of illness, and X is next in line of inheritance.

      X would never had the inheritance had X not murdered A, since B would never had the inheritance from A, so does the slayer rule still apply as a transitive rule?

      Is there a lawyet on here? xD

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 days ago

    The difference between the Justice System and the Legal System

    One tries to provide social equality … the other is a rich man’s game

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 days ago

    On top of this, there are norms that are in a way part of the law (as in: if you ignore them, you are liable), and they are commercial, so you have to pay through the nose for them.