John Hardin
Regular Member
Every once and a while I still like using a IWB holster can anyone suggest a good one
Comp-Tac Minotaur MTAC
http://www.comp-tac.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=95
Every once and a while I still like using a IWB holster can anyone suggest a good one
Comp-Tac Minotaur MTAC
http://www.comp-tac.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=95
I agree, but this isn't how our legal system is supposed to be based. If the law isn't clear the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the civilian. We need to force our public servants to start thinking this way again.
I am not going to live in fear of what some rogue cop or prosecutor is going to charge or think.
1 - when there is doubt about what the law means, the proper thing to do is look at what the courts have previously decided it means. That's "case law" for the one or two who never heard the term before. There is no "If the law isn't clear the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the civilian" in the legal system, just what the law says plus what the courts say the law says. (BTW - when in court you are called a defendant, not a civilian. :>) )
2 - If we are going to force our everybody towards any specific way of thinking, might I suggest that we start with eliminating the completely false notion of "civilian" vs. "any-other-category-you-want-to-claim-to-be"? Unless you are in the military, you are a civilian. Cops are merely folks we have hired to enforce the laws for us so we can spend more time doing other stuff, and legislators are folks we have hired to write laws and set taxes because we are too lazy to do much except complain about what they have done to us. Cops are marginally easier to get fired when their behavior becomes intolerablly illegal.
Please pick up your certificates on the way out. This lecture qualifies for three (3) of the four (4) credits you need to fulfill your Knowledge of Civics class requirement.
stay safe.
There is no "If the law isn't clear the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the civilian" in the legal system, just what the law says plus what the courts say the law says.
Rule of Lenity
In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987); See, e.g., Muscarello v. U.S., 524 U.S. 125 (1998) (declining to apply the rule of lenity); Evans v. U.S., 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Scarborough v. U.S., 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting); See United States v. Santos (2008).
Did you possibly overlook this:
It may be true that there is no "law" but when it comes to how a Judge or Court resolved an ambiguity in law there certainly is a "Rule".