This episode of the podcast features a list of six laws that you’ve probably broken without realizing it. This is followed by a discussin of why it seems necessary to overreact to everything these days, when the fact remains that it is impossible to completely follow the law.

Links:

Laws You Have Broken

Fresh Prince Causes Lockdown

Hurting Others Hurts You Just as Much

Counseling for Kids Who Saw a Pop Tart

Man Arrested and Charged with a Felony for Pointing His Finger

Hi guys. Thanks for checking out another episode of Technically, That’s Illegal. Here’s a summary of the show with links to follow:

Segment 1: The power of negative thinking — good news for the pessimists out there

Segment 2: My crazy speculations about gun control and some things I see on the horizon

Segment 3: Compare and contrast how Jesus said to treat our neighbors with how local governments are mandating that we treat them

Segment 4: Why wanting privacy doesn’t mean you have anything to hide

Links:

No feeding homeless people outside

Doctors asking about guns, as if they know anything about them

Obama asks doctors to help deal with guns

New DSM could lead to more mental illness diagnoses

You don’t need to be hiding something to want and expect privacy

How to handle police request to search you

The power of negative thinking

Normal kids might be labeled as deviant pretty soon

Welcome to another episode of Technically, That’s Illegal.

In this edition, the following things will be discussed:

Why my kids play much better without me around, a girl who was arrested after using bad language on a 9-1-1 call, a man arrested for trying to rescue a dog, electronic scrolling billboards, and the first man to visit all countries on earth without using an airplane.

It’s a wild ride.

Here are some links that were used:

Girl Arrested for Swearing over 9-1-1

British Man Becomes First to Visit all Countries Without Using a Plane

Man Tries to Rescue a Dog and Gets Arrested

Business Backlash Over Not Being Able to Use Certain Signs

Why Children Need More Unstructured Play Time

So often on this blog, I cite stories of people who were arrested for normal behavior or things that we all do every day. Just stick around and do some surfing and you’re sure to find something outrageous.

The response of the public in situations like these is to ignore it and move on because often the charges were dropped or the person wasn’t convicted. But, I maintain that simply being arrested for something is a big deal and shouldn’t be taken lightly.

There are a number of reasons why being arrested can impact your life forever — societal stigma, court fees, job loss, or other things. And sometimes people are even convicted of things they didn’t do, which is the main thing our criminal justice system is supposed to avoid. Will Grigg also reminds us of a way that getting arrested can ruin your life.

So, this is just a friendly reminder to do your best to not judge people who have been arrested…and do your best not to call the police if there is any other solution you can think of.

Remember: I am spending a lot of time and energy making my podcast now. If you don’t subscribe to it, you are missing out on a lot of content here.

A woman in Riverside, California was recently arrested for exceeding her speaking time at the local city council meeting. She went over her three minute limit, and was led away in handcuffs.

The really horrible thing here is how she was treated. She’s 60 years old. She cannot get up without putting her hands down on the ground. So, when she had her hands behind her back on her knees (not sure how she got to her knees), the officers were pulling on her wrists and hands to get her up, which was causing her pain. To some young people without physical ailments  this may seem trivial, but I am one of those people who can’t get up from the ground without turning face-down and pushing off.

There is no mention in any article I’ve read of her causing a disturbance. Of course, there will always be people who assume that every arrest was justified. But, until I find out otherwise, I will assume the opposite — that authority figures overreact these days and criminalize everything.

In most towns, you cannot discharge a firearm. You can’t just do some target practice, hunt, or shoot an animal. The reason for this is obvious — there are other people living in close proximity who either may be disturbed by the noise or even hit by stray projectiles. So, to prevent this type of behavior, most municipalities have instituted a code which states that you cannot discharge a firearm within the city limits.

In my town it reads:

No person shall discharge any firearm in the city unless that person is a police officer or citizen acting under necessity.

Of course, the police officers should also only be acting under necessity, so that exception to the rule does not need to be there.

A woman in Kansas City, Kansas has found out that the exceptions to the rule don’t apply to her. Of course, I assume the Kansas City police don’t get tickets for firing their guns in town and that there is some provision to allow for personal protection.

It was early Saturday when Beck says she saw a stranger climbing over her backyard fence. Beck says when he lunged at her, she shot at him with the .22 pistol she happened to be carrying.

Of course, this is just her testimony, but I would think that a stranger climbing your fence and lunging at you would be a good enough reason to think that your safety may be in jeopardy.

The article goes on:

“I’m relieved I had my gun, because if not I don’t know what would’ve happened to me,” said Beck.

So Beck wasn’t at all happy when FOX 4 told her police records indicate she’d been given a summons for criminal use of a weapon.  A KCK Police Department public information officer told FOX 4 that according to their report, Beck told police she fired the weapon into the ground after the man turned to run away – something Beck denies saying.

“If I shot it in the ground, they would’ve found the casing,” said Beck.

Of course, they probably would not bother to look for the casing to prove her story one way or the other. It turns out that the police had been to her house the night before during an attempted break in. At that time, they did not give the impression that they were taking the case seriously. They didn’t even dust for fingerprints. Then, when someone is climbing her fence the next day, it’s no wonder she felt like she had to take matters into her own hands.

This story is a little old now, but I could not pass up the opportunity to write about it. The story has already made the rounds on twitter, etc., but it epitomizes what this blog is all about — reporting and commenting on stories of people getting in trouble for stupid things.  So, here it is:

A two-stepping couple in their 50s say were trotted off to jail after police in New York City arrested them for dancing on a subway platform.

Caroline Stern, a dentist, and George Hess, a movie prop master, were waiting for a train at the Columbus Circle station after a late evening at Jazz at Lincoln Center’s Midsummer Night’s Swing last year when they began dancing the Charleston to a musician playing the steel drums.

Ms Stern says she and her boyfriend were feeling the beat and there were very few people on the platform so they started moving to the rhythm.

That’s when police came in and spoiled the fun, they told the New York Post.

‘They said, “What are you doing?” and we said, “We’re dancing,”‘ she recalled.

‘And they said, “You can’t do that on the platform.”‘

The charges for the dancing were “disorderly conduct” and “impeding the flow of traffic.” But, according to the couple, things only got nasty when them man began to videotape the incident.

Prosecutors ended up dropping charges against the couple, but they stayed 23 hours in jail for dancing. How ridiculous is that? Thank goodness the police have kept the city of New York safe from dancers.

This article heavily references this one.

Last week, I wrote all about the stupidity of city gun buyback programs. They are a waste of taxpayer money. When governments give out money, people will take advantage of it. Just about everything I wrote last week has proven to be true in a story that I came across this morning. Evidently, a NRA-based shooting camp for kids used the gun buyback money for upgrading their weapons! Let me explain further:

The first point I made in the original post was that these buyback programs are not “no questions asked” as they are advertised.

Despite the no-questions-asked policy of the buyback, police officials asked Guns Save Life members where they got their guns, Boch said. Still, the police officials allowed them to turn in their guns, he said.

What if they hadn’t given an sufficient answer to the officers about where they got their multitude of guns? Doesn’t this automatically violate a “no questions asked” policy? Yes, it does. Since criminals know that cops are often setting up sting operations and thereby engaging in false advertising, it is not hard to conclude that they should not be trusted and that no thugs emptied their gun stashes during the buy back, which was my second point.

My third, fourth, and fifth points in the original post all relate to the fact that the rewards for the forfeiture of the guns is often worth more than the guns themselves. Therefore, the events will seem to be successful, but it is really just a way for people to update their weaponry.

This was rusty, non-firing junk that we turned in, Boch said.

Vandermyde said he was told one suburban gun dealer imported junk rifles for less than $50 each and received $100 gift cards for each of them.

I point out all of these things to remind you of how ineffective the government is…not to toot my own horn. It wasn’t very hard to see this coming. But, Chicago officials didn’t see it coming, I guess:

We host the gun turn-in event on an annual basis to encourage residents to turn in their guns so we can take guns off the street and it’s unfortunate that this group is abusing a program intended to increase the safety of our communities, said Melissa Stratton, a police spokeswoman.

Boo hoo! They act like this is the first time anyone has ever taken advantage of a government program. Right!

In addition to being a place where you find out about stupid laws that people get in trouble for breaking, this blog is also the place to go for stupid government programs. I’m not sure about this because I haven’t seen any official research (and I don’t know how it would be conducted, anyway), but I have my doubts about all of these gun buy back programs that I’ve been hearing about.

Over the weekend, Chicago officials collected more than 5,500 guns in exchange for pre-paid MasterCards of $100. Here are some things that don’t add up to me:

1. They say they are doing this with “no questions asked.” But, I am positive that if a certain firearm was implicated in a crime (a missing murder weapon or something), there would be questions asked after the fact. The might not ask them right then, but they’re not going to just kill a lead like that. No way. Even if it were a truly no questions asked event, this would just mean that murderers would be turning in their murder weapons with no chance of ever getting caught for their crimes. How is this a good idea? $100 does not change a murder’s mind about being a violent person. They will have access to other weapons in the future if they desire to enact violence once again.
2. Because I don’t believe it is truly “no questions asked,” I highly doubt that any of the 5,500 firearms that were collected were contributing in any way to violence in Chicago. A quick google search of “Chicago shooting” with a filter for the last 24 hours reveals that there were at least 2 people killed and 30 wounded in shootings this weekend. Evidently, these people were not motivated to turn in their firearms for a quick little gift card.
3. Sometimes the rewards for these programs are worth more than the guns themselves, so obviously it is going to look like a successful program, but it is not necessarily the best use of the taxpayer’s money. You’ve probably heard of the controversial laws surrounding “Saturday Night Specials,” or inexpensive handguns. Well, these guns are quite common and $100 might cover their cost. Therefore, if the gun has any type of damage or if it’s old, the $100 might be more than the gun is worth. The fact that something is well-attended doesn’t make it successful. Whether it achieved its purpose or not (reducing crime) should be the thing that informs us of its efficacy.
4. In previous programs in other cities, it is well known that gun dealers and people unloading junk guns that don’t even fire is quite a common thing.
5. Common sense tells us that if people can unload their old junk guns for more than they are worth, they are probably going to go buy a new gun with the money! After all, these are people who wanted to own a gun for some reason or another. I’d be interested to hear statistics of gun dealers’ sales up to one month after one of these buy backs. This is where the post title comes in. “Cash for Clunkers” was another stupid government program that gave people exorbitant amounts of money for their old cars IF they purchased a new car with the trade in money. Obviously, these gun buy back programs could be seen as gun upgrade programs, instead.
6. It’s not entirely clear where the guns that were turned in end up. Some buy back programs have destroyed the weapons on the spot. Unfortunately, this is not usually reported — the ultimate destination of these weapons. Some claim that the police get their pick of the loot and destroy the rest. Some claim that they re-sell them! Of course, I can’t really be sure, but unless they’re destroying each and every one on the spot, I can’t say I feel safer with the police having them than the little old lady down the street. Besides that, if they are just going to re-sell them, what was the point?
7. If you agree with the gun buy back programs because you are a gun control person, you have to admit that this is still a minor drop in the bucket. These 5,500 guns cannot actually amount to much in the city of Chicago…even if it was criminals turning them in…
8. I am always talking about revenue-generating laws. At times, cities crack down on certain benign behaviors in order to raise money for itself. Well, now they’re taking all of that money they raised and giving it back to you! Great, right?  No, because they’re going to need to raise it again…

Like most folks, I’ve changed a bit since I was younger. Most notably (and most related to the topic at hand) is how I have changed political philosophies over the years. Libertarian philosophy has a reputation for only appealing to young people. However, it has increasingly become the favored view for me as time has gone on. I just celebrated my 33rd birthday last week, so I’m no spring chicken. It also has a reputation from outsiders for only being about drug legalization. Ugh. Anyway…

I’ve run the gamut in my day from pretty liberal to pretty conservative. But, in my mind, both of those philosophies have their own version of statism (reliance upon government, instead of reliance upon liberty). I have come to reject both of them. My conservative friends think it’s kind of crazy that I think drugs should be legalized and wars should be ended, and my liberal friends think it’s crazy that I don’t support public schools or other myriad government programs.

In terms of liberty and safety:

I have come to realize that the greatest threat that I face is not in Afghanistan.

I have come to realize that the greatest threat I face is not whether my neighbors have guns, marijuana, or unkempt lawns.

I have come to realize that the greatest threat I face is not a stranger saying hello to my kids.

I have come to realize that the greatest threat I face is not from saturated fat.

I have come to realize that the greatest threat I face is not global warming.

I have come to realize that the greatest threat I face is not unvaccinated children.

The greatest threat I face in this world is a government that over-zealously tries to control all of these things. When they do, we all lose. We lose money. We lose our sense of community. We lose liberty.

So, how did I change my mind? I might talk about this more in upcoming posts, but for now, I want to direct you to a television show that started me on the process: Rumpole of the Bailey.

From wikipedia:

Rumpole’s most chancy encounters stem from arguing with judges, particularly those who seem to believe that being on trial implies guilt or that the police are infallible…

Despite his affection for the criminal classes, Rumpole’s character is marked by a firm set of ethics. He is a staunch believer in the presumption of innocence…

While the show rarely deals with liberty as a whole, it definitely got me started down that road due to its focus on questioning the official story and assuming people are innocent. Each and every episode has some aspect of it that helped me to think about the word “criminal” in a totally different manner. It’s wonderful. I would recommend it to everyone.

The show was based on a series of books by John Mortimer. I’ve read a few of the books, too, and they are equally delightful. Here’s how The American Spectator describes Mortimer and Rumpole:

Mortimer’s liberalism was more of the libertarian variety. He defended numerous free speech cases in his legal career. He was the kind of liberal who believed people should be able to do what they wish, rather than the far more numerous kind who wish to micro-manage everyone’s life.

And Rumpole — though he invariably appears for the defense — is not defending crime, but the presumption of innocence. A cornerstone of any free society. And though he regularly pillories judges, cops, and prosecutors, he is not anti-authority, but anti-abuse of authority. The insolence of office is a malady here, in the UK, and in most of the rest of the known universe. Our Horace will have none of it.

Defense stipulates (in this case my defense of Rumpole) that real burglars and safe crackers are not as cuddly as the Timsons, the extended clan of South London villains Rumpole has built a career on keeping out of the nick. But red-blooded TAS-reading conservatives oppose the mailed fist of government crushing the individuals. So does Rumpole, even if he does take it to exotic lengths from time to time.

Mortimer didn’t adopt the more noxious tics of the cultural left. Through his alter ego, Rumpole, he had a great deal of fun at the expense of geek-branch feminists, enviro-nutters, anti-smoking zealots, neo-prohibitionists, food faddists, and all manner of Puritan defenders of the politically correct.

In other words, this show is a field day for reasonable people who want to leave others alone!

*Note — Some of the links in this article  have been updated/changed from their original sources. The current links should work, but may not be as relevant as the originals, which were removed by their owners.