Though the law may be written in a manner that logical people see as clear and beyond interpretation, it is still applied by human beings, who are notorious for injecting feelings into matters of logic and fact. How many times have you heard jurors interviewed after big trials saying their decisions were based on their personal impressions of the defendant - he didn't seem sincere, he didn't act like someone who just lost his wife, he didn't show any remorse - none of which are required by law.Republicans 4 Obama wrote:I hope you didn't carry in church today. They can ignore the exact letter of 46.035 (subsection i) just as easily as they ignore the exact letter of the 30.06 law. Nobody has been a test case for either one.MasterOfNone wrote:Now imagine Eric Holder as DA and Sotomayor as Judge with an Austin jury. What are the odds of the exact letter of the law being upheld?
Application of the law is one big risk management exercise. For any act, you weigh the risks associated with the act and decide whether it is worth pursuing. In cases like this, the risk of misapplication of the law are greater when the the point being challenged is small.
Would you also ignore a 30.06 sign with 15/16 inch letters or that is missing a comma or parenthesis?