If you aren't doing anything illegal...

Great Debates
121

I’m confused. Is it that we’re supposed to know a law exists, or not be surprised to find out that it does? There’s quite a large difference between the two.

As for your other arguments, one could actually agree with you that possessing six similar items shows intent to distribute (I don’t), but still have no idea that that violates any law. If I found out that giving a dildo to someone was a crime, I’d be pretty surprised, and whether I did it with one or six wouldn’t make that surprise any less.

122

If the question is: “Do laws exist where people don’t know the precise details of the laws?” of course the answer to that is yes.

But if you generally know that a course of conduct might be prohibited, then it seems to me you have an obligation to do a little investigation.

I would never hesitate to, say, buy an apple, take it home, and eat it. If a law prohibited that, I’d be caught completely by surprise.

If I wanted to buy and keep a badger as a pet, though… I have no idea if the law permits this or not. But I have an idea that it’s the kind of thing that a law might address. So before I picked out the cutest badger in the litter, I’d investigate the requirements that exist for owning one.

123

But Rick, every state and often municipalities have *different * laws about this kind of thing. YOU may find it infinitely predictable, or you may live your life such that you never ever have had any cause to worry about ANY law. But lots of people DON’T find it predictable or DON’T live their lives quite as narrowly constrainedly as you seem to have chosen to live. What the specific laws are where you happen to be could make a difference between a felon and an innocent. Or are you claiming that every time one takes a trip, they should look up the local statutes of any place they’re passing through? I’m from NJ. If I decide to drive cross country, do I have to look up the laws for every state I’ll go through, even though I’m only there for a few driving hours?

You’re basically arguing a not-terribly-defensible viewpoint. The fact that YOU find every law on the books reasonable and predictable does NOT mean that most people do - you’ve studied the law, for pete’s sake - you HAVE a particular interest in such stuff! Further, I’ll bet you were raised in an educated and law-abiding family. Stuff that is “intuitive” to you is NOT intuitive to others.

All people here are claiming is that it is extremely possible to violate laws without knowing it, and that many, if not most, folks probably have done so at least once in their lives. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Because it portrays The Law as confusing? Once you’re into local statutes, it IS confusing to most of us. Because it portrays The Law as complex? If it weren’t, how would you be earning a living? Why would you have (in your firm if not in your own right) a good-sized law library? It’s bloody complex, at least to layment!

124

er, that would be “laymen,” not “layment”. :smack:

125

You’re right; my statement is not connected to the current discussion. Withdrawn.

126

I wonder who else has been sneaking into my house and using my eight coffee cups and twelve drinking glasses, then.

127

All right. Bricker, have you ever had sex outside of marriage, before 2003?

Sex with the lights on, before 2003? In any position besides missionary?

Oral or anal sex, outside or inside marriage, before 2003?

Driven a car with a radar detector? Driven without shoes?

Passed a car and not honked? Tickled a woman?

Patted a woman on the bum?

Did you ever own a pool? If so, did you ever forget to close the gate after using it?

Flip a coin to see who pays for coffee?

Ridden on the handlebars of a bike?

Used profanity on the boardwalk or Atlantic Avenue in Virginia Beach?

Driven past the same location within 30 minutes?

Oh, that’s a good one. “Anti-Cruising” laws. It’s illegal in some to several locations to drive around a block more than once, say, if you were looking for a parking spot. This is often not enforced equally, too.

These appear to be laws of the state of Virginia, and several of its cities. Unfortunately, the location I picked them from, www.dumblaws.com , doesn’t have citations for all of them. But before 2003, the sexual ones were quite probably in effect. I’m sorry for the intrusion into your personal life, but that does seem to be an area where the government likes to intervene, and is broadly reported. The question is, really, considering the ‘silly season’ state of state legislatures, are you entirely sure that some law has not been passed considering the location of your television in relation to your couch (I recall proposals), or how your heavier furniture should have tiedown straps or be otherwise secured to the floor (an ongoing effort in New York State after three children in two years were killed by climbing on furniture, which promptly overbalanced). Are you entirely sure that no laws were passed to counter the communist or hippie menace that may have odd effects on you today, should they be arbitrarially enforced? What about the ‘for the children’ movement?
Are you sure you have never annoyed a policeman? Ever?

128

All right. Bricker, have you ever had sex outside of marriage, before 2003?

Sex with the lights on, before 2003? In any position besides missionary?

Oral or anal sex, outside or inside marriage, before 2003?

Driven a car with a radar detector? Driven without shoes?

Passed a car and not honked? Tickled a woman?

Patted a woman on the bum?

Did you ever own a pool? If so, did you ever forget to close the gate after using it?

Flip a coin to see who pays for coffee?

Ridden on the handlebars of a bike?

Used profanity on the boardwalk or Atlantic Avenue in Virginia Beach?

Driven past the same location within 30 minutes?

Oh, that’s a good one. “Anti-Cruising” laws. It’s illegal in some to several locations to drive around a block more than once, say, if you were looking for a parking spot. This is often not enforced equally, too.

These appear to be laws of the state of Virginia, and several of its cities. Unfortunately, the location I picked them from, www.dumblaws.com , doesn’t have citations for all of them. But before 2003, the sexual ones were quite probably in effect. I’m sorry for the intrusion into your personal life, but that does seem to be an area where the government likes to intervene, and is broadly reported. The question is, really, considering the ‘silly season’ state of state legislatures, are you entirely sure that some law has not been passed considering the location of your television in relation to your couch (I recall proposals), or how your heavier furniture should have tiedown straps or be otherwise secured to the floor (an ongoing effort in New York State after three children in two years were killed by climbing on furniture, which promptly overbalanced). Are you entirely sure that no laws were passed to counter the communist or hippie menace that may have odd effects on you today, should they be arbitrarially enforced? What about the ‘for the children’ movement?
Are you sure you have never annoyed a policeman? Ever?
Wouldn’t it be fun if a policeman who was annoyed with you could watch your daily commute and cite you every time you sloppily obeyed a traffic law?
Have you never performed a rolling stop, changed lanes without signalling, even if it was an emergency, or exceeded the speed limit? Stopped over the white line?
All it takes is one policeman annoyed with you, and it gets interesting.

I’ve had it happen to me… I made a harsh turn, he launched across two lanes of traffic to catch someone he thought was a college kid, discovered I was stopped on top of the hill, veered to avoid me, his brakes went out, and shredded someone’s lawn. High-speed chase that was about a block and a half long that wound up with a wrecked cop car and a wrecked lawn. (I got cited for ‘unsafe turn, unsafe stop’. Both were reduced to a point and a small fine, could have fought it, but wasn’t worth it.)

He watched me for months. Learned when I left for work, trailed me three out of five days. Never cited me again, but it was a bit unnerving.

Are you that good? Are you that sure? Should you have to be? Should you have to be unsafe from government predation in your own home?

129

The law is complex in nuance. In its basics, it’s very simple.

The claim is hard for me to accept because whenever we try to narrow it down into a particular example, I find the example wanting. If the law is so complex that, as you say, most folks violate it wthout knowing it, then coming up with scads of examples should be child’s play.

The only one that’s even come close is the “obscene device” business… and I should point out that even there, I’ve been extremely generous in allowing the idea that sex toys qualify under this law. The “ripped from the headlines” case involving sex toys and Texas law was dismissed; no one was convicted of possessing sex toys.

130

Given that it is the former, not the latter, which is relevant to the question before us (Would anyone be safe from being found guilty of violating some law or other if extensive monitoring were widely available to the authorities?), I don’t see your point.

131

Dude, what are you ON? And does the government know about it?

132

Stand by, I’m gonna fax one over to you :smiley:

133

I’m shockec. Shocked I tell you.

134

Hey, if Bricker wants to claim he’s never broken a law, let him. Barring anyone performing a major audit of his life, the issue is unprovable and any attempt to dredge up wacky improbable laws that could easily be violated without realizing it just brings up more denials, which remain unprovable. Besides, even if one could find a little-known statute and Bricker admitted he was unfamiliar with it and might have violated it, what would that prove? It wouldn’t invalidate his other comments.

I’m still a little curious about his response to post #73, which was in response to his claim that if he “were sitting on a jury”, everything would be hunky-dory.

135

And no surprise there. I have in the past railed against that exact site as a purveyor of ignorance. Much of what exists on dumblaws.com appears to be simply made up.

But… let’s go through the list:

If I had, that conduct was not illegal under Lawrence v. Texas.

Yes. And it’s not illegal to do so.

If I had, that conduct was not illegal under Lawrence v. Texas. And besides, the issue is knowing that the conduct might be illegal – if I did, I certainly was aware there was a law against it.

Yes, but not in Virginia, where it’s illegal. I never used my radar detector in Virginia.

Yes. Not illegal.

Yes, and yes. Not illegal, and not illegal.

Yes. Not illegal, since the pat was consented to. Obviously an unwelcome pat would be assault.

No pool ownership.

Sure. Not illegal.

If I did, it was at an age before I could possibly form the requisite mens rea to be guilty of a crime.

If I did, it was expressive speech protected by the First Amendment.

Sure, many times. Not illegal.

136

The point is that there are not laws that are so obscure that people violate them without knowing it. In the nuance, you may be safe even though you think you’re on thin ice. But in general, you always know you’re on ice of some kind.

137

I would never begin to imagine that owning six different kinds of sex toys was illegal anywhere in this country.

My earlier comment about broken CDs was just whimisical curiosity about exactly how far Bricker would go to keep himself above all possible suspicion.

138

Sorry I missed this one.

This comment strikes me as somewhat tangential to the point I’m defending.

Everyone believes that buying this month’s Playboy is perfectly legal. If you were to show me a law that made it illegal, I would concede the point that the law is effectively unknowable; no one could be expected to know that a law forbid that conduct.

But – could we imagine “…one determined cop, one determined district attorney, one determined judge and one determined juror…” all of the fundamentalist stripe, who looked at Rachel Sterling’s nudie pics and decided they were legally obscene?

It is conceivable. But it would represent a substantial departure from who the law has been applied, and with every step along the way, the chances increase dramatically that someone would end it. The determined cop may be offended, but the odds are the district attorney won’t file charges. The district attorney may be determined, too, but then the odds are the judge would simply dismiss. And if, against all odds, the judge were equally determined, then we need twelve jurors who are similarly determined. And so on, through the appellate courts.

That’s not “the law acting upon the unwary.” If it happens, it’s the system of law itself not functioning. Why don’t you point out that a crooked cop could plant drugs in your pocket during a traffic stop pat-down? After all, that, too, is an innocent action getting caught up in a prosecution even though the actor had no idea he was violating the law, right?

You don’t bring up that scenario because it, too, is inapplicable to what we’re – or at least, what I – am discussing. If someone prosecutes you for obscenity-related charges for owning Playboy, that’s a misapplication of the obscenity law, and not consistent with the standards for applying that law. I’m not claiming such things never happen; I’m saying that doesn’t fit what I objected to originally.

139

[QUOTE=Bricker]

Yes, but not in Virginia, where it’s illegal. I never used my radar detector in Virginia.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you use it; it’s illegal to have it (unless it’s disconnected and inaccessible, not merely turned off).

I think that the issue of whether we can expect a trained lawyer, much less an ordinary member of the Teeming Millions, to steer clear of legal entanglements if his every move were subject to scrutiny (which is, after all, one of the questions raised in the OP) can be regarded as settled.

140

The original point was that one reason for opposing routine monitoring is:

Admittedly, this point had mutated somewhat by the time you initially responded to it, to:

Even here, the question is explicitly not limited to laws that average people have never heard of.