I Know I Was Right, But...

I understand this and have used it when I was an LE officer, but the only danger I see is that some laws are termed "general" intent which means if you violated that law, it is assumed you meant to do so. Others are "specific" intent which means the state has to prove you actually meant to commit the crime. I believe most codified law (at least in Idaho from what I can remember) indicates when it is "specific" intent and if it does not, it's "general".

For instance, In Idaho "burglary" is a "specific" intent law. It states that when a person enters a building with the intent to commit theft or any other felony they have committed "burglary".

If a person enters a building with no intention of stealing, then it's just a theft. If they enter without stealing then it's just an "unlawful entry" or "trespassing". Sometimes intent, with regard to burglary, can be proven by the mere fact the person would have had no other reason to say forcefully enter a house than to steal something. But let's say they were cold and forcefully entered a remote cabin to survive, then saw there was food int eh fridge. When they eat it, have they committed "burglary"?

Anyway, my whole point is that sometimes we may not know what the intent of a law is. When they passed "anti-piracy" laws, did the codified law state "with the intention of preventing "the growth of underground theatres"? I doubt it.

That's maybe part of the the problem with the law- it's kept vague to trap as many people as possible.

Excellent points, whodunit.

"When they passed "anti-piracy" laws, did the codified law state "with the intention of preventing "the growth of underground theatres"? I doubt it.

That's maybe part of the the problem with the law- it's kept vague to trap as many people as possible"

I agree on all counts. The way the entire body of laws work, it can place individuals in situations where to follow one law, one has to break another. That gets crazymaking for people who only understand the simplistic directives. Laws are ultimately an enforcement of the status quo or desires of those who have pushed the law through congress or a legislature, or those who have pressured for "regulations" with the force of law that have been enacted WITHOUT any representation of the people.

I use the M.A.D.D. getting states to change the legal drinking age up to 21 as an example. Citizens and even soldiers who have all the rights of citizenship and majority at age 18 are IMO ILLEGALLY denied the right to drink a beer. Imagine this same selective thinking being used in other applications. You are over the age of fifty, you are legally no longer allowed to attend a rock concert. You are of child-bearing age, you are no longer allowed to ride in the front of a car. All of it is insanity. That first one is law, but it has no more supporting base from any moral ground than those hypothetical last two examples.

My greater point is that the people who take the body of laws as a penultimate moral authority are not thinking, or actively deceiving themselves. It is a heck of a lot more work to try to figure out a consistent personal moral code, but well worth the effort.

Sometimes, when legal thievery is rampant, you have to decide how to fight back. Sometimes fighting back can even be a moral requirement. Repressive laws do not get repealed without outcry.

__________________
George Washington did not run and hide.

Oddly enough, ran across this tonight:

Gever Tulley 5 dangerous things you should let your kids do | Video on TED.com

__________________
George Washington did not run and hide.