3 ms·

Both things can be correct if you believe the law in question is bad. The Jefferson quote comes to mind: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobe

Both things can be correct if you believe the law in question is bad. The Jefferson quote comes to mind: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

eddieplan9 10y ago
This. I know this country is unique. It's a country born from rebellion to begin with.
scythe 10y ago
That's from Saint Augustine (famously quoted by ML King Jr in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"), not Thomas Jefferson.
mikeash 10y ago
You'd think they would mention that the law was bad if that was their justification here.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  And the word 'entrap' is disingenuous. Entrapment is used to describe situations where law enforcement induces someone to break a law they would have been otherwise unlikely to commit. In this case, the drivers were already breaking the law (opinions on the righteousness of the law notwithstanding), and law enforcement was seeking to apprehend, not entrap.
- dpraburaj 10y ago
  They probably underestimated the number of people who believe that not all regulations benefit consumers necessarily.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Maybe not. That might tie their hands in court. It might leave "have the court declare the law invalid" as their only way to win. Limiting your options that way tends to be bad legal strategy (whether or not it would be the moral high ground). Disclaimer: IANAL.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It seems to me that saying "we did this so we can violate the law without getting caught" is already an extremely bad legal strategy. If their statement was aimed at limiting their legal exposure it wouldn't have included that part at all. If it was aimed at showing that they're morally in the right, they would have said that the laws were bad. I can't see anything that justifies what they said, aside from thinking everyone sees the law the same way they do so it goes without saying.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> law in question is bad >> If a law is unjust To me those seem like very different things. I'd bet Jefferson was talking about laws that severely impact people's lives (slavery, torture, things we would consider human rights breaches) and not pretty innocuous things like taxi regulations.

Both things can be correct if you believe the law in question is bad. The Jefferson quote comes to mind: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

eddieplan9 10y ago

This. I know this country is unique. It's a country born from rebellion to begin with.

scythe 10y ago

That's from Saint Augustine (famously quoted by ML King Jr in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"), not Thomas Jefferson.

mikeash 10y ago

You'd think they would mention that the law was bad if that was their justification here.

FireBeyond 10y ago
And the word 'entrap' is disingenuous. Entrapment is used to describe situations where law enforcement induces someone to break a law they would have been otherwise unlikely to commit. In this case, the drivers were already breaking the law (opinions on the righteousness of the law notwithstanding), and law enforcement was seeking to apprehend, not entrap.
dpraburaj 10y ago
They probably underestimated the number of people who believe that not all regulations benefit consumers necessarily.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Maybe not. That might tie their hands in court. It might leave "have the court declare the law invalid" as their only way to win. Limiting your options that way tends to be bad legal strategy (whether or not it would be the moral high ground). Disclaimer: IANAL.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It seems to me that saying "we did this so we can violate the law without getting caught" is already an extremely bad legal strategy. If their statement was aimed at limiting their legal exposure it wouldn't have included that part at all. If it was aimed at showing that they're morally in the right, they would have said that the laws were bad. I can't see anything that justifies what they said, aside from thinking everyone sees the law the same way they do so it goes without saying.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> law in question is bad >> If a law is unjust To me those seem like very different things. I'd bet Jefferson was talking about laws that severely impact people's lives (slavery, torture, things we would consider human rights breaches) and not pretty innocuous things like taxi regulations.