Semantics?

This is a discussion on Semantics? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Is it possible that we have allowed the Government to change in our minds what a law is depending on who is using that law? ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Semantics?

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298

    Semantics?

    Is it possible that we have allowed the Government to change in our minds what a law is depending on who is using that law?

    Getting off on a technicality? How many time do we hear that an individual got off on a technicality when the Government violated the law? If you or I do that we are called lawbreakers and rightly so. When the Government does it they call it a rules violation.
    Breaking the rules, violating policy and not following procedure. Why do we accept it when the Government uses these terms as a nice way of saying that they broke the law.

    An illegal search is a violation of the law. Not a rules or policy violation. Yet we ourselves have been brainwashed into believing that it is a technicality if someone goes free because of it.

    Michael
    Eagleks likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array WHEC724's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    6,445
    Very salient point, Michael.

    Government entities will naturally give themselves a "pass". It comes with absolute power. Which is why it is so important to restrict the size and authority of government. What scares me is that there is a tipping point at which we will no longer be able to reign it in. We may already be passed that point.
    __________________________________
    'Clinging to my guns and religion

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Michael, though I agree with the sentiment, I think there are dimensions to this you might not be considering.

    For one thing, not everything that is prohibited carries punishment in the form of fines or jail. An illegal search conducted
    by LE, is typically sanctioned only by disallowing the use of evidence thus obtained.

    Prosecutors of course have, and must have, discretion. They aren't going to call an illegal search breaking and entering and
    theft at night and demand a 99 year sentence. That's just the way it is, and must be, or nothing much would work well.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Hopyard I agree with your post and the reasoning behind it, My problem is with people who believe do not realize that those loopholes criminals get off on are actually cases where the Government has in most cases violated a law. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that only citizens break laws. That when the Government violates those same laws we refuse to admit it. We say that they broke policy or violated some silly rule. When in fact most of those rules and policies are really laws. By refusing to acknowledge this fact the Government is setting itself as being above the law.

    I do not fault the Government for attempting this. I fault us for accepting it.

    Michael

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,809
    We call it a technicality because that's what it is. An officer believe he has probable cause for a search following a murder. During that search he finds the murder weapon, bloody clothes, and a letter addressed to a friend explaining that the suspect is going to be away for a while until things cool down after the crime. So this evidence is used to make an arrest. Charges are filed. The judge decides that there wasn't enough probable cause to conduct the search and thus none of the evidence can be used. Without this evidence it isn't possible to get a conviction. So we have someone that committed murder that gets off due to the technicality of PC for a search.

    It doesn't make the murderer any less guilty, it just ensures that he will never have to answer for his crime due to an honest mistake on the part of the officer. (This also explains why warrants are usually used even in cases where PC would be enough. Why take the risk? let them have time to destroy evidence so we can be sure that what evidence we do have is preserved and allowed in court.)
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    We call it a technicality because that's what it is. An officer believe he has probable cause for a search following a murder. During that search he finds the murder weapon, bloody clothes, and a letter addressed to a friend explaining that the suspect is going to be away for a while until things cool down after the crime. So this evidence is used to make an arrest. Charges are filed. The judge decides that there wasn't enough probable cause to conduct the search and thus none of the evidence can be used. Without this evidence it isn't possible to get a conviction. So we have someone that committed murder that gets off due to the technicality of PC for a search.

    It doesn't make the murderer any less guilty, it just ensures that he will never have to answer for his crime due to an honest mistake on the part of the officer. (This also explains why warrants are usually used even in cases where PC would be enough. Why take the risk? let them have time to destroy evidence so we can be sure that what evidence we do have is preserved and allowed in court.)
    Same officer knows that he does not have probable cause for a search and proceeds anyway. Thinking that he will not get caught or the State will back his decision. Still a technicality? No law was broken?

    Michael

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Michael, though I agree with the sentiment, I think there are dimensions to this you might not be considering.

    For one thing, not everything that is prohibited carries punishment in the form of fines or jail. An illegal search conducted
    by LE, is typically sanctioned only by disallowing the use of evidence thus obtained.

    Prosecutors of course have, and must have, discretion. They aren't going to call an illegal search breaking and entering and
    theft at night and demand a 99 year sentence. That's just the way it is, and must be, or nothing much would work well.

    Hopyard, I really have to disagree with you on this. First of all, sanction does not mean to punish, it means to approve of or support.

    While it's true that not all prohibited actions carry a punishment, they are still prohibited actions and if they are prohibited by the Constitution (as opposed to mere policy) they are against the law. If there is no defined punishment for breaking the law that is a failure of the government to institute a punishment needed to implement that law, or just an unwillingness to enforce the law. Perhaps it is should not surprise us that the justice system would not design a punishment for itself.

    While prosecutors might not call an illegal search breaking and entering (and you correct in saying "That's the way it is") I can not see any good reason why an illegal search should not be called what it, in fact, is. The operative word here being illegal.

    Finally, to assert that it "...must be, or nothing much would work well." is merely a justification for why LE should be above the law.

    It seems this lack of justice must be addressed in the civil courts as it was with another civil rights violation: Segregation.
    mlr1m likes this.

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Hopyard I agree with your post and the reasoning behind it, My problem is with people who believe do not realize that those loopholes criminals get off on are actually cases where the Government has in most cases violated a law. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that only citizens break laws. That when the Government violates those same laws we refuse to admit it. We say that they broke policy or violated some silly rule. When in fact most of those rules and policies are really laws. By refusing to acknowledge this fact the Government is setting itself as being above the law.

    I do not fault the Government for attempting this. I fault us for accepting it.

    Michael
    I think you are confusing two different issues. As you point out, criminal get off on technicalities all the time, and we know
    that these "technicalities" frequently are the errors made by officialdom. And such errors do not presently typically
    carry any fine or punishment other than the loss of a case.

    We do however punish wrong doing of all sort by officials. We punish official corruption when it is discovered. We punish
    brutality when it is proven to a jury.

    Should we punish violations of the 4th or the 5th beyond invalidating illegally collected evidence? I think so, in some
    instances where a judge feels a particularly malicious and deliberate flouting was involved.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,624
    There are those that will do it, and figure the worse case is..... they will get slapped on the wrist or evidence won't be allowed, but they play the odds that it might be. They know they are violating search, seizure, or other laws and/or policies. He has a point, if there are never any "peronsal" penalties or sanctions, what stops anyone from doing it ?
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    For the most part I disagree with the idea that criminals get off on technicalities. Unless we call the Government nor following the law a technicality. I'm not implying that there should not be some discretion when enforcing the law. I am only saying that calling it a technicality is dishonest. It is not a technicality if I am not convicted after being illegally pulled over and searched on the side of the road. It is not a technicality when the government cannot prove the cash I have in my trunk is not drug money.

    The more we accept that rights are but mere technicalities the easier and more willing we will be to give them up.

    Michael

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    Hopyard, I really have to disagree with you on this. First of all, sanction does not mean to punish, it means to approve of or support.

    While it's true that not all prohibited actions carry a punishment, they are still prohibited actions and if they are prohibited by the Constitution (as opposed to mere policy) they are against the law. If there is no defined punishment for breaking the law that is a failure of the government to institute a punishment needed to implement that law, or just an unwillingness to enforce the law. Perhaps it is should not surprise us that the justice system would not design a punishment for itself.

    While prosecutors might not call an illegal search breaking and entering (and you correct in saying "That's the way it is") I can not see any good reason why an illegal search should not be called what it, in fact, is. The operative word here being illegal.

    Finally, to assert that it "...must be, or nothing much would work well." is merely a justification for why LE should be above the law.

    It seems this lack of justice must be addressed in the civil courts as it was with another civil rights violation: Segregation.
    I think we agree there is a problem. I think we both agree that there should be additional laws providing for punishment
    of those who willfully violate rights and cause society to lose cases the prosecution should have won.

    I think the word "sanction" may be used either way depending on context.
    My understanding is that as a noun the word means a threatened penalty, or an imposed penalty for violations. The word has
    an almost 180 degree opposite meaning when used as a verb. There is also a legal definition.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,155
    The problem goes much deeper than this...The "laws" that are being "broken" by those who enforce the laws... the laws, in many cases are written by those who have no authority to write them in the first place...

    This occurs mostly at the federal and state level by bureaucracies and the bureaucrats who run them... they are executive laws... not legislative laws...
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    The problem goes much deeper than this...The "laws" that are being "broken" by those who enforce the laws... the laws, in many cases are written by those who have no authority to write them in the first place...

    This occurs mostly at the federal and state level by bureaucracies and the bureaucrats who run them... they are executive laws... not legislative laws...
    I think you are attempting to argue that Congress can't delegate rule or regulation making to the Executive Agencies. Like it or not, it has, it is lawful, and so the phrase "those who have no authority to write them in the first place," really doesn't apply.

    And all such rules must comply with
    existing law and our constitution. An Agency can't promulgate a regulation which violates
    a law passed by Congress.

    There are thoroughly well established processes for rule making by Executive Agencies at the Federal level and
    in all states; that is, state legislatures have done the same. They don't get into the nitty gritty detail of everything.

    We live in a practical world. I don't see how things would or could work otherwise.
    Last edited by Hopyard; October 9th, 2012 at 03:15 PM. Reason: edited for clarity and to correct an error.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,987
    Officers of the court, in the course of their duty, are immune to civil penalty for procedural violations. In such cases, I think that the defendant is usually made whole (compensated for losses). This way, the legal system doesn't grind to a halt if some cops aren't Perry Mason.
    The problem is not semantics. And it isn't double standard. Maybe that's why they call a badge a "shield"?
    The problem is with the endless resources of "professional" agents who twist the law to break innocents like the whale watcher captain who tried to cooperate with NOAA cops (yes, NOAA has cops).
    The Drug War is bad strategy because the government (directly or by policy) violates way more rights to life, liberty, and property than it properly defends.
    The bottom line is that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights (and to define or legally establish ownership, if and when necessary to adjudicate it). If it doesn't violate rights, then it isn't a crime. IMO, that is the vision of the founders.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I think you are attempting to argue that Congress can't delegate rule or regulation making to the Executive Agencies. Like it or not, it has, it is lawful, and so the phrase "those who have no authority to write them in the first place," really doesn't apply.

    And all such rules must comply with
    existing law and our constitution. An Agency can't promulgate a regulation which violates
    a law passed by Congress.

    There are thoroughly well established processes for rule making by Executive Agencies at the Federal level and
    in all states; that is, state legislatures have done the same. They don't get into the nitty gritty detail of everything.

    We live in a practical world. I don't see how things would or could work otherwise.
    As long a it doesn't violate a law passed by Congress...

    Giving unregulated authority to un-elected "tin gods" to write laws and regulations, to be enforced by an ever growing force of enforcement officers, whose salaries are paid by the citizenry, both those who are violators (caught) and those who are not (taxpayers). What a lovely "scheme" might not be Ponzi's, but a scheme, nevertheless.

    All because our Congressmen would be inconvenienced if they had to do their real jobs rather than worry about their re-election, and schmoozing with the lobbyists who arrange to fill their war chests.

    The system is far more complicated than the "matrix".
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

discussion on semantics

Click on a term to search for related topics.