Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > breaking laws      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 1
view profile
History
breaking lawsPage 1 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
What determines if you decide to break a law or not?

How'd it for you? or how's it working for you? Did you get caught? Arrested? Did the consequence make you change your ways? Right away?

I've broken laws that in my mind are unfair for the situation...(surprise, surprise) or even some just because I did not like them. Luckily I didn't get caught.

Most of these were bylaws but not all, some could have landed me in jail.


If I did get arrested it for one of the laws I have broken (and may break again), it would probably deter me from being so flagrant about it but I doubt I'd stop.

I don't have a criminal record nor have I been arrested or had my prints taken. (one close call).
(Did you know that even touching a cop can be considered assault? Even if he's assaulting? thank you other cop!). Who knew?

I think by allowing the police the room to just give a warning instead of arresting can be better for all at times (unless they discriminate then it's not good for ALL).

Where should the line be drawn?

Should police be given more room or less room to determine if they should arrest? And if they choose to arrest, even when it's ridiculous, should a judge be able to throw it out of court on that basis (the ridiculous basis lol) instead of having to make a deal or get the person off on a technicality that may make the system look crooked or unjust?

I know this happens and we have "misdemeanors" but do we really need to be busting minor crimes and having otherwise good people thrown in jail or given time and a criminal record?

Your thoughts?
 Eric_Summit
Joined: 11/3/2009
Msg: 2
breaking laws
Posted: 2/6/2014 10:09:22 PM
I am as pure as the driven snow and completely virtuous 24 x 7 x 365.
If there is an opportunity for Breaking The Law it means Judas Priest is playing on the stereo.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 3
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 12:16:46 AM
Just throwing it all out there, answer whatever or add whatever.

I thought of something besides using the police and judges for minor crimes, where all involved work it out, outside the law and having mediators and peers reviews instead of busting people.

I'm just wondering if what we do now makes sense and if there is room for change as most have committed minor crimes and it doesn't seem to be of any service to the community to do things the way we have been.

Just want to hear what others have to say or share.
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 12:21:25 AM
It is not enough that you form, and even follow the most excellent rules for conducting yourself in the world; you must also know when to deviate from them, and where lies the exception.

- Lord Greville


Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

- Henry David Thoreau


Non-cooperation is a protest against an unwitting & unwilling participation in evil.

- Mahatma Gandhi


As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.

- Henry David Thoreau
 runningout
Joined: 8/19/2008
Msg: 5
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 4:47:16 AM
It would help, OP, if you had of gave some examples as the majority of the post makes no sense.

In order for the police to arrest you, it would have to be a crime, thus being in a book somewhere stating it is illegal. Depending on what the crime was, example Motor Vehicle Act, the cops have leeway. If you are talking about assault or say property damage, the cops would have to arrest if there is enough evidence.

I may be wrong here, but I thought court cases were still decided based on evidence, not on whether a judge thinks something is ridiculous or not.

As for jail and criminal records, is that not what people do community service for?
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 6
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 5:06:29 AM
When I was younger I broke laws(or did not follow them) not knowing. Now, after I have added quite a few years I still break some but, I am more of aware that I am actually breaking them. At all times though, I was being the person I was suppose to be and still, I happened to follow the Golden Rule along the way. I can live with that.


Depending on what the crime was, example Motor Vehicle Act, the cops have leeway.


Cops, no matter what are still suppose to be people. And all people have choices. At what time are the police allowed to "question" what they do because "it's their job" ? I've seen too many individuals act like phucking morons because the "law" lets them. Sometimes, it's a sorry state. The examples are everywhere, if you are looking. I will add though, I've also seen some individuals turn their head, because no matter what the law "said", they still understood what was "right". They didn't leave it up to a "judge". Well, the one in the court room anyways.

At one time "laws" were suppose to be for the good of the majority. I don't think that's the case anymore.
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 7
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 9:28:17 AM
How many laws ARE there , anyway in the U.S.? Wanna take a guess?
Short answer - Nobody knows.
Below is a short article about federal laws only. Just imagine, the state, county and city laws in addition to these !

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws

By
Gary Fields and
John R. Emshwiller
July 23, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920

WASHINGTON—For decades, the task of counting the total number of federal criminal laws has bedeviled lawyers, academics and government officials.

"You will have died and resurrected three times," and still be trying to figure out the answer, said Ronald Gainer, a retired Justice Department official.

As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Americans Are Ensnared

In 1982, while at the Justice Department, Mr. Gainer oversaw what still stands as the most comprehensive attempt to tote up a number. The effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.

Justice Department lawyers undertook "the laborious counting" of the scattered statutes "for the express purpose of exposing the idiocy" of the system, said Mr. Gainer, now 76 years old.

It can often be very difficult to make a call whether or not something counts as a single crime or many. That task fell to one lawyer, Mr. Gainer says, who read the statutes and ultimately used her judgment to decide: If a particular act fell under multiple crime categories—such as forms of fraud that could also be counted as theft—she had to determine whether it could be prosecuted under each. If an offense could be counted in either of two sections, she counted them separately, Mr. Gainer said.

The project stretched two years. In the end, it produced only an educated estimate: about 3,000 criminal offenses. Since then, no one has tried anything nearly as extensive.

The Drug Abuse Prevention and Control section of the code—Title 21—provides a window into the difficulties of counting. More than 130 pages in length, it essentially pivots around two basic crimes, trafficking and possession. But it also delves into the specifics of hundreds of drugs and chemicals.

Scholars debate whether the section comprises two offenses or hundreds. Reading it requires toggling between the historical footnotes, judicial opinions and other sections in the same title. It has also been amended 17 times.

In 1998, the American Bar Association performed a computer search of the federal codes looking for the words "fine" and "imprison," as well as variations. The ABA study concluded the number of crimes was by then likely much higher than 3,000, but didn't give a specific estimate.

"We concluded that the hunt to say, 'Here is an exact number of federal crimes,' is likely to prove futile and inaccurate," says James Strazzella, who drafted the ABA report. The ABA felt "it was enough to picture the vast increase in federal crimes and identify certain important areas of overlap with state crimes," he said.

None of these studies broached the separate—and equally complex—question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."
 Beauregard63
Joined: 7/15/2013
Msg: 8
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 10:34:23 AM
I'm off the opinion that the police/federal security officers have too much power in matters that are of little danger to other citizens and spend too much of their resources persecuting people for minor infringments against the laws of state.

Police in Canada spend far too much of their time handing out tickets for things like seat belts, going 10 mph over the speed limit, driving with a blood alcohol content between .05 and .08 ( all in the name of generating revenue ) and not enough time catching people who are doing crimes that actually matter.

Yes I have broken some laws in the past ( nothing that could harm anyone but me ) and been ticketed for minor infractions such as speeding ( never more than 15 mph over the posted limit and forgetting to put on my seat belts and drinking under age ( I'm sure I say that cop out in public pissed to the eyeballs a couple of years later ) - Ironically I have even had a lecture on wearing a seat belt from motorcycle cop - yah he's less likely to get injured in an accident than I am without a seat belt.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 11:07:21 AM

I am as pure as the driven snow and completely virtuous 24 x 7 x 365.
LMAO ...


If there is an opportunity for Breaking The Law it means Judas Priest is playing on the stereo.
LMAO ... out there thuging around to the tunes of heavy metal. Ya ... I've heard heavy metal can drive a person to do all kinds of illegal shit.

I personally have no use for any kind of noise that doesn't sound like music ... or that you can't understand the words to.

I've worked in too many jails and my motto is ... "Don't go to jail if you don't like the rules in the jail."

I've had inmates ask me for Aspirin or Tylenol ... but I cannot even give them that without a doctor's order. They pitch a b1tch about it and say ... "If I was out on the street I could get it!" That's when I just say, "Well then don't go to jail and you can get it, but I'm not gonna lose my license over just giving you a stupid pain pill."
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 10
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 11:59:38 AM
Watch out for that one extra day every four years when he's wheeling & dealing in crime!

Yes I've broken the law, no I don't think I'm innocent and that the laws are crooked. I think some people think they shouldn't get in trouble and that's no excuse. If I don't like a law I don't think I'm special but I have had some breaks from getting in trouble and I deeply appreciate them. I in no way think I'm above the law.

Anyone in authority who is corrupt is a blot on society, they should be brought to justice and pay for their crimes, sadly that doesn't happen too often. But I do not think that most people in authority are corrupt, I think some people just like to blame instead of taking responsibility.

Personally I would die if I ever had to go to jail or prison, I can't even imagine. I try to stay out of trouble.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 11
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 12:03:16 PM
FAQ
(Adjusted from the Nova Scotia RJ FAQ)

What is restorative justice?
Why is it called restorative justice? Who is being restored?
What are some examples of restorative justice practices?
How widespread is interest in restorative justice? What other jurisdictions have adopted restorative practices?
What research has been conducted regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice process?
Can restorative justice be used in serious cases?
Is restorative justice “soft on crime”?
What if the victim does not want to participate in a restorative justice process?
Is restorative justice appropriate for “victimless” crimes?
How is “community” defined for the purposes of restorative justice?
Can restorative justice be used in large urban centres?
How do we deal with family and societal problems identified during the restorative justice process?

1. What is restorative justice?

Restorative justice is a way of thinking about crime and conflict. It is not a particular practice or type of program, but rather a philosophy, or a set of principles. The United Nations Working Group on Restorative Justice defines it in the following way: a process whereby parties with a stake in a particular offence resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.

Restorative justice processes worldwide are premised on the following principles:

holding the offender accountable in a more meaningful way
repairing the harm caused by the offence
achieving a sense of healing for the victim and the community
reintegrating the offender back into the community (when appropriate)

2. Why is it called restorative justice? Who is being restored?

Restorative justice is concerned with the construction of a better society for both the present and the future. Some of the goals of restorative justice are listed below:

tries to repair the harm to the victim (but recognizes that it is not always possible to replace what the victim has lost)
aims to restore the offender to a law-abiding life
hopes to restore any damage sustained in the community

3. What are some examples of restorative justice practices?
Victim-Offender Mediation

Victim-offender mediation occurs when victims and offenders meet face-to-face in the presence of a trained facilitator. The parties have an opportunity to talk about the crime, to express their feelings and concerns, to get answers to their questions, and to negotiate a resolution. Support people for both the victim and offender may be present, however, they do not normally participate in the discussion.
community justice Conference

A community justice conference also involves a face-to-face meeting between the victim and offender. A family group conference, however, engages a larger group of participants, which includes the support people for both the victim and the offender, relevant professionals, the facilitator, and the investigating officer. All participants have an opportunity to talk about the crime, to express their feelings and concerns, and to get answers to their questions. All participants can also express opinions on how the offender should make amends.
Sentencing Circle

A sentencing circle involves the same participants as a family group conference, as well as the presiding judge, Crown attorney, and defence counsel. As with the other models, each participant is given an equal opportunity to participate. Everyone works together to arrive at a plan for the offender which will repair the harm caused by the offence. A circle goes beyond developing a sentence for the offender, and engages the support of all participants to assist the offender in fulfilling the terms of the plan.

For more descriptions of what VRJS does, please see our What do we Do? page.
4. How widespread is interest in restorative justice? What other jurisdictions have adopted restorative practices?

The oldest practice of restorative justice, victim-offender mediation, had its roots in the Kitchener-Waterloo of Ontario in the 1970s.
By 1990, a NATO-supported conference was held to examine growing interest in restorative justice.
In 1996, New Zealand adopted legislation mandating the use of restorative practices in young offender cases.
Many jurisdictions, including Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and European countries have adopted restorative justice programs.

5. What research has been conducted regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice process?

Research regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice to affect systemic change in the criminal justice system has been limited. However, there have been several important studies regarding specific restorative justice processes, such as victim-offender mediation and community justice conferencing.

The research finds the following:

victims who meet with their offenders are far more likely to be satisfied with the justice system’s response to their case than those who go through the normal justice process
after meeting the offender, victims are significantly less fearful of being revictimized
offenders who meet with their victim are far more likely to fulfill the agreed upon restitution with regard to the victim of their crime
considerably fewer and less serious crimes are subsequently committed by offenders who meet their victim

For VRJS’ data, please see our 2010 Annual Report. For more articles and research on restorative justice around the world, please visit our RJ Resources page.
6. Can restorative justice be used in serious cases?

VRJS, or any other restorative justice program, is not intended to replace the current criminal justice system. It does, however, have the potential to meet needs that are not currently being met by the existing system. For instance, the need for reconciliation and healing exists for all offences, regardless of their severity. In serious cases, where the loss to the victim is more profound, restorative justice has been found to be more meaningful for victims, community members, and offenders.

It’s important to remember that restorative justice can be used alongside the criminal justice system and is not always used as diversion. There is also no guarantee that participation in a restorative justice process will result in a ‘lighter’ sentence than the normal court process would.
7. Is restorative justice ‘soft on crime’?

Restorative justice offers a more demanding, active, and clear opportunity for offenders to be held directly accountable to the victim and the community they have harmed. Rather than being soft on crime, restorative justice requires the offender to behave more responsibly by making amends to the victim and community.

Some would suggest that it is more difficult for an offender to meet face-to-face with the victim of their crime than to proceed through the criminal justice system. In the traditional system offenders are not required to accept responsibility for their actions, are not held accountable for their actions, and are not required to explain their actions. Many offenders proceed through the system with a lawyer who speaks on their behalf.
8. What if the victim does not want to participate in a restorative justice process?

Participation in the restorative justice is completely voluntary for all participants.

One of the primary goals of restorative justice is to increase victim satisfaction in the system by giving them an active role in the justice process. Every effort will therefore be made to provide the victim with the information, preparation, and support they need in order to participate in a restorative justice process.

If a victim does not want to participate in a restorative justice process but still consents to the case being handled by restorative justice (e.g. rather than court), there are many options on how to accommodate their needs. They could write a statement explaining the impact the offence/wrongdoing has had on them, they could record a video and explain the same thing, or they could send someone to represent them, such as a family member or friend. Community members could participate on their behalf and speak to the impact the crime has had on them.
9. Is restorative justice appropriate for “victimless” crimes?

Certain offences, such as drug offences, are often called “victimless” crimes. They do, however, have a dramatic effect on an entire community. In cases such as this, representatives from the community in general, or a citizen’s group, could participate in a restorative justice process and speak about the effect the crime has had on the community.
10. How is “community” defined for the purposes of restorative justice?

The term community, as used in restorative justice, is not necessarily a physical or geographic region. Community is defined as the “community of the incident” including:

family members
key support people
significant others for each party who have been impacted by the offence

11. Can restorative justice be used in large urban centres?

Yes and with great success. Large urban centres often have the benefit of having a more comprehensive network of resources to which offenders and victims can be referred.
12. How do we deal with family and societal problems identified during the restorative justice process?

Restorative justice focuses on identifying the underlying causes which may have led to the offender committing a crime. The following conditions are important:

identifying key support people who can assist the offender in addressing some of the personal issues which led to the offence
raising awareness within a community about the conditions in that community which might have led to the offence
referring both the offender and victim to appropriate community resources to deal with issues that are identified in the process

Restorative justice provides an opportunity for the justice system to start working more collaboratively with other service providers, such as schools, health organizations, child protection agencies, and other social service agencies, in an effort to address the underlying causes of crime.

For people new to the concept of restorative justice, it is often helpful to point out what restorative justice is not (from Howard Zehr’s “The Little Book of Restorative Justice”):

RJ is not primarily about forgiveness or reconciliation – we do not encourage victims to forgive or reconcile with those who have committed an offence.
RJ is not mediation – an encounter is not always appropriate between a victim and offender, but even when an encounter occurs, the term “mediation” does not apply because its philosophy holds that both parties are on a level moral playing field, and in the case of crime or other wrongdoings that lead to restorative justice, there is a clear acknowledgment that the action was wrong.
RJ is not primarily designed to reduce recidivism or repeating offences – although there is a great deal of evidence that shows RJ reduces recidivism quite well, this is just a positive byproduct. RJ is what we consider “the right thing to do” – victims needs should be addressed, offenders should be encouraged to take responsibility and be held to true accountability, those affected by an offense should be involved in the process, regardless of whether offenders catch on and reduce their offending.
RJ is not a particular program or blueprint – there is no pure model of RJ, and every program must be built based on the needs, strengths and resources of the community it is used in.
RJ is not primarily intended for comparatively minor offenses or for first-time offenders – although it’s often easier to get support for RJ when it’s used for comparatively minor offenses like shoplifting, experience and research show that RJ often has the greatest impact in more severe cases. Furthermore, the principles of RJ are essentially designed for more serious cases.
RJ is not a new or North American development – although the modern-day North American movement of RJ began in the 1970s, it owes a great deal to earlier movements and a variety of cultural and religious* traditions, especially the native people of North America and New Zealand.
RJ is neither a panacea nor necessarily a replacement for the legal system – RJ is not an answer to all cases. We believe that crime has both a public and private dimension; while the legal system focuses on the public dimension, it simultaneously often excludes the private, personal and interpersonal dimension.
RJ is not necessarily an alternative to prison – RJ is not synonymous with diversion; it can be used as such, but can also be used independently of the legal system, having no effect on an offender’s trial or criminal record.


This is the program I'm considering getting involved with.

http://rjvictoria.wordpress.com/in-the-community/upcoming-programs-and-projects/
 Eric_Summit
Joined: 11/3/2009
Msg: 12
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 12:07:16 PM
Posted by daynadaze:
"Watch out for that one extra day every four years when he's wheeling & dealing in crime!"

Nice one! ;-)
I know it is not speed limit laws because I typically use the cruise control feature.
Will have to watch to ensure I come to a compete and full stop at stop signs. LOL.
 ProcolHarem
Joined: 8/29/2008
Msg: 13
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 2:58:20 PM
There are a lot of dumb laws out there. It's possible that most of us have unintentionally broken a law without even knowing it.
Just today as a matter of fact, I broke the following law right here in New Jersey.


You may not slurp your soup.
 Eric_Summit
Joined: 11/3/2009
Msg: 14
breaking laws
Posted: 2/7/2014 10:01:10 PM
ProcolHarem...true story...it is against the law to throw pickles (or parts of pickles) into the street in Trenton, NJ. You know there is someone violating that ordinance when they go through the McDonald's drive-thru and subsequently toss their pickles out the window while driving on I-95 / NJ Turnpike.
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 12:02:34 AM
I can't wait until we begin talking about some laws which aren't so obviously ridiculous to everyone, but not approved of by most either.

"The most important thing...we can know about a man is what he takes for granted, and the most elemental and important facts about a society are those that are seldom debated and generally regarded as settled."

- Louis Wirth
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 16
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 12:18:30 AM
Good quotes and in the seldom debated category, I find it funny that things that should be debated like religion and politics seem to have this protection rules that we should not talk about them.

I wonder why that is? hmmmm

Pot laws are stupid, most drug laws, (hmmm who really supplies the drugs?), swearing is not allowed, defending yourself against a cop is not allowed, gathering more than 14? can be made illegal, protesting in some areas, taking pictures, speaking your mind at some places, camp fires when obviously it's safe, not giving info to cops is not aloowed...

leaking information is not allowed (whistle blowing). not paying taxes, no having insurance...hitch hiking, sleeping in parks or in your car, picking some herbs and mushrooms...

calling harper a child abuser is not allowed.

blockades are not allowed.

funny (not) it seems that most laws protect stuff and not people. (unless it's the corrupt people.)

living off the grid breaks most by laws.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 17
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 3:00:55 AM
Right off the bat, I separate out talking about law ENFORCEMENT from the laws themselves.

Law enforcement is a job, a task being performed by fellow human beings. It is not a vague concept, or shadowy idol of authority like The Law is. Most police of any kind (especially including military people, who are actually a form of police acting for us against foreign "criminals") are VERY underpaid, and many of them are under-trained and under supplied. This is because on the whole, no mater how much a societies politicians may preen and make a big show of appreciating the people doing the down-and-dirty dangerous job of cleaning up the world and making it safe for them, they don't want to actually PAY for all that protection.

That all means that I will tend to be more supportive of a law enforcement officer in a tense situation, than I will be of any of the (usually) thoughtless people he or she is trying to keep in line.

In my experience witnessing law enforcement in action, I have seen several basic things. First, that since law enforcement IS a job, the enforcers have to do what they are commanded to do. It isn't up to them to decide whether a law is a good one or not, only whether you are breaking it or not.

--In my experience, most police do try to avoid the most extreme measures they could take, in order to gain compliance.

--SOME members of law enforcement do decide to become avengers of some sort, and go overboard the other way.

--Most of the time, when significant laws are being broken, or threatened to be broken, the situation is very dangerous to the officer. That includes everything from dealing with break-ins, to traffic stops, to crowd control, and more. Just because YOU know you are just 'feeling your oats' and bouncing off the walls in joy, doesn't mean that the officer trying to deal with you can count on that. Tons of times, officers are attacked with deadly force, by people who they were actually trying to HELP.

--Too many people who do decide that a law is unjust, instead of taking it out on the people who PASSED the laws, take it out on the people who are being underpaid to ENFORCE them. That is as unjust as the horrid laws themselves.

--Even the silliest sounding laws out there, USUALLY had a genuine problem at their source. Most such laws are the result of politicians doing a bad job of dealing with a genuine problem. I have no idea where the "no pickle throwing " law came from, but chances are there was some big to-do in the past, where pickles were thrown, and enough rich people got upset, that they decided to out-law pickle throwing.

-- MOST people break 'laws' all the time. That is, since there are so many little laws and regulations out there, just walking down the street to the Seven Eleven to buy a Slim Jim can get you in trouble, if you aren't extremely careful. Jaywalking, crossing against the light, glancing left and right when passing a private residence and accidentally invading the privacy of people who failed to close their curtains, saying hello to other peoples children....almost anything can turn out to have a law about it that you unintentionally and unknowingly broke.

Most people I know who have managed to get jailed have done FAR more than any of that, they have knowingly decided that their being angry, or feeling some sense of imbalance in their sense of fairness, justifies attacking, stealing from, or otherwise abusing other people. I have very little patience for such one-sided self-righteousness.

As for those who have been jailed for some form of protest, or political resistance, they are special cases. In such situations, it is the INTENTION to be arrested and jailed, in order to bring attention to the unfair law, and try to garner public opinion to getting it changed. It has nothing to do with people who break laws and then COMPLAIN when they are prosecuted.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 3:45:13 AM
Like most manifestos these days, this one is just misunderstandings and sour grapes.

For example, living off the grid is not illegal. Squating on other people's/crown land is. Burning wood and creating absurd amounts of air pollution is illegal. Hunting and gather (even mushrooms) out of season or inappropriately is illegal. Owning livestock in a city is illegal. If you don't harm anyone by what you're doing living off the grid is perfectly legal.

Not paying taxes harms people, not having insurance seriously harms people, having campfires when YOU thnk it's obviously safe harms people. No one is going to have a camp fire when they think it's obviously dangerous.

Taking pictures is almost never illegal.

Speaking your mind is never illegal except when it harms people. Swearing is not illegal...the aggressive behavior that usually accompanies it might be.

You can't publically call ANYONE a child abuser unless they actually are convicted of the crime.

Not giving cops information is of course completely legal unless there is probable cause you have committed a crime. Then, in everybody's best interest, it is illegal.

Blockades are obviously not legal...why would they be? Your right to protest doesn't trump my right to move freely about the cabin.

Public gatherings of more than three people CAN be illegal. Public protests are bound by the same (usually municipal) laws any other gathering, parade, party or whatever. Having boundaries and limitations is in no way offensive to your chartered rights and freedoms. There is no absolute right to do anything in this country for good and obvious reasons....I was forced to pay my portion of 180k to clean up after 15 hobos camping in a public park for six months because they were "protesting". Not fair.

Anyway, I just want to add my favourite anarchist to the quote collection. See if you can identify the author...


Whatever illegal acts may be committed by politicians, cops, or CEOs as individuals, theft, bribery, and graft are not part of the System but diseases of the System. The less stealing there is, the better the System functions, and that is why the servants and boosters of the System always advocate obedience to the law in public, even if they may sometimes find it convenient to break the law in private.


You can absolutely defend yourself against cops, you just have to know how to do it. You're an idiot if you think touching a cop is a good idea.


funny (not) it seems that most laws protect stuff and not people. (unless it's the corrupt people.


You're so wrong about that.

For what it's worth, I think you need to think really hard about the path you're heading down. It may seem cool, enlightened, romantic to fight the powers that be and get yourself arrested for the cause. But the reality is you're probably going to snap out of this phase you're in and want to...I don't know...travel outside of Canada some day, or get a boating license, or volunteer with kids, or get a job....or simply do something constructive to forward your cause And those are just the good things in life you'll be missing out on with even a misdemeanor record.
 motown_cowgirl
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 19
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 6:03:02 AM
without inflating things to the level of a "manifesto", in general terms i always like to make the legal distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se. "malum prohibitum" means "it's wrong because some azzhole who has the power to say so, said so" whereas "malum in se" means wrong or evil in itself. malum prohibitum laws tend to change over time to reflect society's prevailing points of view. black people riding at the front of the bus, women voting, and gay marriage were all very, very illegal at one point under the notion of "malum prohibitum". sometimes people break these kinds of laws on purpose to make a statement and foment change. most people, most of the time, probably aren't cut out to take that kind of a stand, which why these kinds of laws work as well as they do in the first place.

of course there is always room for argument which is why we have so many lawyers. according to the by-laws of the community i once lived in, not having one's chimney flue painted to match the house was a punishable offense. i remained defiant in not painting mine. IMO they should have thanked me for not painting it international orange as fair warning to low-flying aircraft (important safety feature). i thanked them instead for being too lazy to enforce their own asinine rules. and yet having it painted properly was an explicit term of the contract to which i had agreed just by buying a house there. still, no harm done but that never stopped anyone from getting a wild hair about these things.

I've broken enough laws that I should have been arrested on numerous occasions.
it's really not very hard to not come to the wrong people's attention.... "situational awareness".
with that being said, none of these heinous acts happened under the category of "malum in se".
believe it or not, i haven't actually murdered anyone. (may have pondered it a few times, long ago).
"if a tree falls down in the woods but no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?"
breaking (malum prohibitum) laws works pretty much the same way.
break wisely, my friends.
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 20
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 9:01:36 AM

want to...I don't know...travel outside of Canada some day, or get a boating license, or volunteer with kids, or get a job....or simply do something constructive to forward your cause And those are just the good things in life you'll be missing out on with even a misdemeanor record.


Taking lessons on how to install fear to make sure people do what you believe they should do? A lot of people aren't listening to that shiat anymore, though I'm not telling you to stop talking, I'm just saying it ain't working.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 21
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 10:34:34 AM

Taking lessons on how to install fear to make sure people do what you believe they should do? A lot of people aren't listening to that shiat anymore, though I'm not telling you to stop talking, I'm just saying it ain't working.


Oh really? The laws have changed? They let you cross borders with criminal records now? Employers don't ask you the felony question any more? Background checks are a thing of the past? I must have missed something. Please enlighten.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 22
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 10:46:45 AM

Whatever illegal acts may be committed by politicians, cops, or CEOs as individuals, theft, bribery, and graft are not part of the System but diseases of the System. The less stealing there is, the better the System functions, and that is why the servants and boosters of the System always advocate obedience to the law in public, even if they may sometimes find it convenient to break the law in private.


--Ted Kaczynski

T.K. isn't an Anarchist. He's a highly educated, paranoid delusional murderer.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 23
view profile
History
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 12:00:08 PM
#18

it seems that most laws protect stuff and not people.


Laws should protect our property as well as our persons. We have a property in things because we've invested our labor in those things. To take someone's property from him is to take his compensation for the hours of labor spent acquiring it. In effect, that is to force the person whose property is wrongly taken to spend some part of his life as a slave.

#20

Burning wood and creating absurd amounts of air pollution is illegal.


People here in California burn wood in their fireplaces all the time. I also burn wood when I go camping. One local college has always had a huge wood bonfire on the hill behind campus to celebrate homecoming. I guess whoever has authority to judge such things doesn't think the amount of air pollution these wood fires create is "absurd."


You can't publically call ANYONE a child abuser unless they actually are convicted of the crime.


What law prohibits that? Calling someone a child abuser couldn't be grounds for defamation if it were true. And any public figure who was called a child abuser would usually just have to lump it, even if it were not true. As far as I know, Mr. B.J. Clinton was never convicted of rape, but I and a lot of other people still believe he committed that crime and call him a rapist.
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 24
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 12:40:36 PM
"If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower. " - hitler
"He who stops being better, stops being good" - oliver cromwell
"Impossible is a word found only in the dictionary of fools" - napoleon
"the real strong have no need to prove it to the phonies" - manson
" I believe in one thing only, power of the human will. " - stalin
"A mans gotta make at least one bet a day, else he could be walking around lucky and not even know it" - jim jones

Even bad folks can have good ideas....

"Breaking the law?" Everyone does it, or nearly everyone. You'd have to live in a bubble not to.
People who say they don't, or act like their little infractions aren't important- are the ones to watch out for.
A few miles over the limit? Ask a mother who's child was run over how important limits are....
Not reporting a profit that came as cash.... burdens everyone else. Admit it or not.

Do the crime/do the time is a quickly eroding "ethic"...
folks who rebel in sneaky or low impact ways then congratulate themselves, crack me up.

There are so few true outlaws in the world. Probably always has been that way.
They are romanticized because regular folks wish they could be free from the obligation of decency or in rare cases- resist tyranny.
That is the true crime, that people will accept injustice yet only wish for, hope for, dream of standing up for what's right.
Conversely, when some act out... its with the false sense of pushing back against the "man".

I think laws are there for reasons. If you choose to break them, you should be prepared to pay the consequences.

Igor- I agree about folks confusing their anger at the enforcers/system that made the laws..... and I have been a victim of more than one of those corrupt enforcers, to the tune of broken bones and stitches. I can still own my part in things, even if it was just being in the wrong place at the right time or looking the part.

Most other times tho- I got what I deserved, as do most.
breaking laws
Posted: 2/8/2014 3:51:16 PM
Wow. Very well written, everybody. An unleashing of straight-up-ness.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > breaking laws