not really because you would be breaking the law driving unlicensed even if you were driving the speed limit. so long as there's no reason to pull you over the law isn't being enforced.
I’m not sure that was the original question.. well, I didn’t interpret that way anyway. You’re right of course, and charges will vary depending on jurisdiction. I didn’t take the intent of the post in that light. I’m probably the minority in that interpretation lol
How long has it been ? If the car had a radar you'll get the ticket in the mail within a week. Reality ir that the cop had most likely something else to do
I mean, if you change it to "if Bob murdered a guy in cold blood (i.e. not defense, etc.) and no one was looking, did Bob break the law?" The answer to me wouldn't be anything but yes.
Just because the offense is different or you don't agree with it doesn't change that in my eyes. It generally doesn't change it in the eyes of the law, either. Always campaign against laws you think are bullshit. If enough people do, you might be able to do something about it.
This is completely and totally factually incorrect.
People break laws all of the time and get away with it. Driving one mile an hour over the speed limit is breaking the law.
Just because no pencil dick officer would write you a ticket for one mile an hour over the speed limit doesn't mean that you were not in fact breaking the law, just that you are not going to get punished for the law that you broke.
I don’t think thats a logically defensible position. That would make me guilty of speeding (and technically every other crime on the books) even if I never get in a car.
Without a finding of fact by a court, I have the presumption of innocence. Without that finding, I am NOT in fact breaking any laws. The alternative is a presumption of guilt which is the opposite of our entire legal system.
An unenforced rule is still another entry on a list of established things that reflects the wishes/will of the management team of whatever place you're in.
If I was Link and went to a Hylian's house and they asked me not to break anything but I still broke all their vases, they might not say or do anything in response, but did I not just go up against the aspired conditions of the person who built and thus rightfully decides how to honor the home?
An overwhelming number of people seem to think that either intention or whether you were charged are relevant to the question here: https://lemmy.ml/comment/8298237
what? youre talking about the joemygod(dot)com article?
its pretty biased and if you read the pdf you can search for Zwonitzer: you can find tons of examples of biden bragging about having the classified material. So its pretty well-established that joe had the info and knew he had the info. so he broke the law.
So really the question should be "if you are alleged to have been speeding, but some people are reporting that there is no evidence that you were speeding and some others are saying that source is biased - did you break the law?"
This is likely the most asinine thing I hear on a regular basis. Speed limits exist for a reason. If driving the speed limit actually created a hazard, rather than simply creating an annoyance for someone who is willing to drive recklessly to shave a few seconds off their trip, you might have a point, but you don't.
The only circumstance where it creates a hazard is if everyone else around them is speeding, in which case, the people who are speeding are creating the hazard, not the person following the laws, you know, the ones that are there to enforce safety on the roads.
Intent may not be relevant for your example, but a lot of US law does have different crimes and levels of criminality that depend on intent.
For example, if I kill someone on accident, that's usually categorized as manslaughter. If I kill someone on purpose, that might be murder. Depending on how much premeditation went into, it might be murder in the first degree, which comes with the most severe punishments.
yeah, so the "level of crime" is debatable, but if I kill someone it would not be wrong to say "I broke the law" right?
Maybe it was justifiable, but it is up to a jury to determine guilt.
Really the essence of my question is: "are 'guilt' and 'breaking the law' seen as different things."
conversely, if a murderer got acquitted, but then indisputable proof that the were the murder came out afterwards, you would say, "he broke the law".
It depends on the law really. There is no one rule.
For example, owning lockpicks is in many places not illegal, but owning lockpicks with the intent of bypassing a lock is.
Some laws are very specific about the severity or testability of a crime where as others are not. In that case a judge has to interpret the criteria for legal tests, either from previous case law or by building new case law.
In any case, being charged for something or not is a completely separate issue. Things are no less illegal just because the state has no resource or will to execute the law.
Also, being charged does not mean you broke the law either. Nor does judgment determine it (although it's a very strong hint) since a latter appeal could acquit you of chargers.
The determination of guilt is in the facts of what happened. And that's the whole point of the legal system. Being charged, getting judgement, appealing. It's all a process to determine guilt or not. It is not itself the mechanism of guilt.
The idea of a "guilty conscience" enshrines this idea in expression.