Originally posted by samstone11
I think it is becoming more and more difficult to stay centered on the line between right and wrong or legal and illegal. The line is either blurred
for some or completely moved for others, and like most discussions a truly mutual answer is probably not there. What I think I am learning for myself
is to stay as far from the line as possible so I won't be falling on the wrong side so often. What do you think?
The line, and the punishment for crossing it, is written by legislators but that in itself does not make it 'right', just 'the law' which we
must be seen to comply with.
I do not agree with every law, and I don't agree with every prescribed punishment for breaking them, but I am aware of the law, and what a police
officer/magistrate/judge/jury might consider while making a decision about my actions.
I pseudo comply where necessary, and in any potentially confrontational situation my choices are influenced by understanding of potential legal
consequences. It is instinctive to me.
I am driven solely by my own definitions of right or wrong but I know that 'the law' often differs with the way I see things. An act of Parliament
does not impress me particularly in itself, I make my own choices based on my own moral code. But I'm aware of 'the law' and it's line, and enjoy
crossing it where it fits my definition of right and wrong.
I always stop at a red light, where appropriate, but if it's safe to drive on again without waiting I generally will if there is no police car around.
The law says it is wrong but I disagree that my decision at the time is wrong so I make my choice.
That's a tame example but you see my picture of knowing the line, but playing around it. I don't respect 'the law' simply because it is the law.
In the UK there is only one emotion acceptable in law for the use of force, fear.
Fear for the life or safety of yourself or others etc - Acting because of anger is not a defence, although it can be a mitigating factor in extreme
The use of force must also be reasonable in the circumstances, but being subjective that's how any choices I make are influenced.
Many years ago I appeared in court on a violence/bodily harm charge after repeatedly striking and injuring an attacker much bigger than me. I was
found not-guilty as I had claimed that I feared him killing me until he stopped struggling and it was safe for me to make good my escape. The court
agreed that it was reasonable for me to use the amount of force I did due to the size of the guy and the situation. It was an 8 month process from
arrest to not-guilty verdict, but from the moment the incident started my mind had legal defence firmly in mind along with my physical defence.
Curiously 'the law' influenced me in that incident as it made me stop due to potential difficulties proving 'reasonable' force. If I'd known I could
have got away with it the guy would have had more, he deserved it in my moral code, but hey it was sensible for me to follow Parliaments laws then
Know the line that applies to you and play their game where you have to. Of course I understand your emotions at the time and I probably would have
wanted to smack the guy and break his camera, but unless I could get away with it I wouldn't. The law says no, so when there's any camera filming me I
will be seen to be following said 'law', from the camera in the police car, to the cell and the interview room. Good luck with your legal situation
though, crying about the camera being pushed away with no injuries is lame, and I'd be shocked if the Crown Prosecution Service here wasted thousands
on such a pointless case, hope it's a similar situation where you are.
edit on 6-2-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)