Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 04:57 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
All law enforcement officers are presumed to know the law


Who presumes that?
Do all lawyers know ALL the laws in the US Code?
Do you even know ALL of the laws in your own specialty?

And I dont mean can you look them up, do you know ALL of them from memory?

And if you dont, what makes you think a cop would know all of the laws in his jurisdiction?


They are responsible for knowing the laws that they are paid to apply. It is part of their duty and goes hand-in-hand with the power they are given by the State.

I don't expect every cop to know every law - for example, there are thousands of pages of zoning codes and tax codes. But laws which govern the interaction between cops and citizens? Disorderly conduct laws? You're goddamn right the cops should know them!

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 04:57 pm
@mysteryman,
mm is such an idiot, he has to ask the most mundane questions that should be common knowledge to any adult.

He jumps from "law enforcement" to lawyers as if that has any relationship.

The real danger is that he doesn't know it's stupid!
Debra Law
 
  2  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:01 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

roger wrote:

Don't be giving anybody ideas, Okie. We do not need a Public Option for legal care.

But we might need an attorney to accompany us when we go have our life plan review or whatever it is every so often with the bureaucrats, health advisory boards or whatever it will be, and they tell us how we may want to end our life. We might need a lawyer to read the forms to us and explain what they mean. After all, only a bureaucrat can interpret bureaucratic forms , rules, and regulations, for us, before we sign our death sentences. And since there will probably be at least 45 million Americans and illegal aliens that cannot afford legal councel, we may need universal legal care. And we cannot walk into a lawyers office in need of emergency advice, it will do no good, we would die destitute without councel, so it is paramount that something is done, even if its wrong. After all, lawyers probably or apparently exempt themselves from something like the hippocratic oath, and are not obligated to impart anyone any of their wisdom without getting paid handsomely for it.


Okie is engaged in fear-mongering.

Do you have a living will, okie? Why or why not?

Didn't the Schiavo case demonstrate the need for everyone to have a living will? Terry Schiavo didn't sign her own death warrant, her husband convinced a court that she wouldn't want to live in a persistent vegetative state. If Terry Schiavo had executed a living will stating that she wanted food and water, she would probably still be alive today.

To pull the plug, or not--that is the question. To provide nutrition and hydration, or not--that is the question.

Are you arguing that people should not be informed of their right to answer these questions for themselves and thus determine their own destinies?

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
He jumps from "law enforcement" to lawyers as if that has any relationship.


Actually, it does, and if you had the smarts you like to think you do you would know that.

Both of them (lawyers, cops) are charged with enforcing the law.
Both of them are "officers of the court".

So, it was a legitimate question, even if you dont like it.

And to be honest, the more it pisses you off the better I like it.
Debra Law
 
  2  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
(Litany of personal attacks omitted.)

Read what is written.


Thus far, you haven't written anything to substantiate your opinion that O'Bill's post was BS. Rather than engage in personal attacks, why don't you practice what you preach and provide us with a substantive response.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:19 pm
@mysteryman,
Laughing
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
He jumps from "law enforcement" to lawyers as if that has any relationship.


Actually, it does, and if you had the smarts you like to think you do you would know that.

Both of them (lawyers, cops) are charged with enforcing the law.
Both of them are "officers of the court".
Laughing This is simply not true.

mysteryman wrote:
So, it was a legitimate question, even if you dont like it.
It was an absurd question. Few lawyers or police officers, if any, know all of the laws in the U.S. code. Sillier still because Officer Crowley doesn’t enforce U.S. code.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
They are responsible for knowing the laws that they are paid to apply. It is part of their duty and goes hand-in-hand with the power they are given by the State.


OK, which of these Ca laws do you think needs more enforcement?


Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

It is a misdemeanor
to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Women may not drive in a house coat.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine.

And heres one from Eureka...
Men who wear moustaches are forbidden from kissing women.

And from Fresno...
Permanent markers may not be sold in the city limits.


The list goes on.
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/california?page=0

So, should a cop know AND enforce those laws also,or are some of them archaic and meaningless now?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:24 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Few lawyers or police officers, if any, know all of the laws in the U.S. code


So then it is possible for a cop to not know all of the laws in his jurisdiction?

For reference, see my post above this one.
Do you really think a Ca cop knows all of the laws in Ca?

And before you say it, I know the US Code is federal law, but the point is that no cop or lawyer can possibly know all of the laws he or she is paid to enforce or that are on the books in his city, county,state,etc.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:24 pm
@mysteryman,
mm, You really don't know me do you? Your posts do not piss me off; that's the reason I keep challenging what you write. They are elementary stuff with so much idiocy/stupidity in them, you're an easy target.

CLUE: No lawyer knows every aspect of US law or doctors know everything about every aspect of all the specialties involved in the medical field.

Police officers do not enforce US laws; the courts do.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Police officers do not enforce US laws; the courts do.


If thats so, then why are cops on the street?
Who enforces the law on the street?
The courts dont, because they dont have judges or bailiffs on every street corner.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:29 pm
@mysteryman,
If you don't know what cops do, that's your problem.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:31 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:

OK, which of these Ca laws do you think needs more enforcement?


Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.


Dude - don't be asinine. You know exactly what I mean, and you know that cops should know the laws they enforce.

To put it simply, a cop better damn well know the law if he's planning on arresting someone for violating that law.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The list I posted are actual Ca laws.
So, should a cop know AND enforce them, or are they useless, archaic laws that havent been removed from the books?

And, if they are still on the books, shouldnt they be enforced?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:33 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

The list I posted are actual Ca laws.
So, should a cop know AND enforce them, or are they useless, archaic laws that havent been removed from the books?

And, if they are still on the books, shouldnt they be enforced?


You're still being asinine. Can't you quit this?

Do you disagree with me, that cops should know laws that they are arresting people for violating?

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Do you disagree with me, that cops should know laws that they are arresting people for violating?


No, I dont disagree.

Now, should the cops enforce EVERY law still on the books, or can they be excused for not knowing some of them?
And if they DONT know them, can they be excused for arresting or not arresting someone for violating them?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:52 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
All law enforcement officers are presumed to know the law


Who presumes that?
Do all lawyers know ALL the laws in the US Code?
Do you even know ALL of the laws in your own specialty?

And I dont mean can you look them up, do you know ALL of them from memory?

And if you dont, what makes you think a cop would know all of the laws in his jurisdiction?


Even YOU -- a mere citizen -- is presumed to know the law.

Surely you are aware of the timeless axiom that warns "ignorance of the law is no defense."

“Every citizen is presumed to know the law thus declared, and it needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes or the decisions and opinions of the justices.” Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886).

Are you suggesting that the officer who arrested Gates did not have access to the disorderly conduct statute and the state supreme court case law intepreting and strictly limiting the reach of the statute in order to prevent unconstitutional arrests?

It makes a tremendous amount of sense, if the average citizen is presumed to know the law (because the citizen is required to obey the law), then a law enforcement officer is also presumed to know the law (because the officer is required to enforce the law). Because a law enforcement officer is liable to the arrestee for making an arrest without probable cause (and again, ignorance of the law is no defense), the law enforcement officer has a personal interest at stake in knowing the law he is charged with enforcing.





0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:52 pm
@mysteryman,
For starters, cops are not officers of the court.
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Few lawyers or police officers, if any, know all of the laws in the U.S. code


So then it is possible for a cop to not know all of the laws in his jurisdiction?

For reference, see my post above this one.
Do you really think a Ca cop knows all of the laws in Ca?
Which part of "few if any" confused you?

mysteryman wrote:
And before you say it, I know the US Code is federal law, but the point is that no cop or lawyer can possibly know all of the laws he or she is paid to enforce or that are on the books in his city, county,state,etc.
I would stop at unlikely rather than impossible, but essentially yes. But that won't help you make a point, because a cop had better have a good working knowledge of any law he intends to use to make an arrest. He cannot, for instance, arrest you for violating a law that doesn’t exist and later explain away his actions by saying, "oh, I thought it did exist and I can't be expected to know all of the laws anyway." That he can't be expected to memorize every law in his jurisdiction is a given, but it is wholly irrelevant to any conversation taking place here. The idea of a prosecutor not familiarizing himself with a statute before prosecuting someone for violating it is even more ridiculous.

A cop should never arrest anyone for violating any law unless he is familiar with it, or is executing a warrant issued by someone who was. This is basic bill of rights stuff, MM. Our justice system, by design, favors letting the guilty go over punishing the innocent. That's where policies like "probable cause", "beyond a reasonable doubt" come from. If you really think about it, you'll find that you wouldn't want it any other way.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 05:58 pm
O'Bill, Debra,
I will repeat my question.

Should a cop then know and enforce EVERY law on the books, no matter how stupid, archaic, or just plain dumb a law is?

And if he doesnt, who is at fault, the cop or the legal system and the lawyers that passed those laws?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:02 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

O'Bill, Debra,
I will repeat my question.

Should a cop then know and enforce EVERY law on the books, no matter how stupid, archaic, or just plain dumb a law is?
Of course not.

mysteryman wrote:
And if he doesnt, who is at fault, the cop or the legal system and the lawyers that passed those laws?
No one. A cop is not required to enforce every law. Most aren't even his problem.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:06 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
These are all city or state laws in Ca.
Are you saying a cop is NOT required to enforce them, even though they ar still laws on the books in Ca.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/california?page=0

So, should a cop know AND enforce those laws also?
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1385
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 01/31/2025 at 03:08:47