4 ms·

Umm, you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life. I guarantee it. You add in state and municipal codes and you probably

Umm, you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life. I guarantee it. You add in state and municipal codes and you probably are breaking the law right now as you read this and probably in multiple ways. Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding? Especially given that the tests for which are written so that any commercial vehicle with any wear and tear at all will fail some aspect. "Standing your ground" on principle is fine I guess if you have as large an ego as Arrington; I would rather focus on what is important and get sh*t done. I also really would advise taking anything he says when it comes to anything he has a vested interest in with a grain of salt. He has less than a stellar record on honesty when it comes to self-reporting.

jrs235 14y ago
Yes but it's a bit more damning if you SIGN YOUR NAME to something you know is false. It's easier for a judge or jury to find leniency in breaking a law you didn't know about than knowingly stating a falsehood to be true. It's much easier to twist the situation from "I signed it cause they said it was okay." (Where's your proof? This will turn into a he said she said situation) to a "He intentionally mislead the government in order to [something bad, cheat on taxes, get through customs unlawfully, etc.]"
ScottBurson 14y ago
you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life. Perhaps. But if that's true, I don't know which laws they are or how I'm breaking them. Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding? You have completely twisted what I said. First, I said if someone can be prosecuted for signing a form prepared by government workers. You left that critical condition out entirely. Secondly, and more broadly, I'm not talking about government workers demanding absolute accuracy of us -- I'm talking about them demanding absolute accuracy of themselves. IANAL, obviously, but it does occur to me that once the customs worker encouraged Arrington to sign the form anyway, should he ever have been prosecuted for doing so -- which I agree seems unlikely -- he had, I would think, a valid entrapment defense. Of course, he probably had no proof that she said that, but being able to argue it might have been sufficient anyway. So I agree, he probably should have signed the form. But I don't really care about that. Arrington is not collecting a salary paid by my tax dollars; he is simply a citizen attempting to protect himself. Whether he made the right choice or not here is for him to figure out. What I care about is the behavior of my government, which I pay for and which claims to be acting on authority vested in it by its citizens, of which I am one.

jrs235 14y ago

Yes but it's a bit more damning if you SIGN YOUR NAME to something you know is false. It's easier for a judge or jury to find leniency in breaking a law you didn't know about than knowingly stating a falsehood to be true. It's much easier to twist the situation from "I signed it cause they said it was okay." (Where's your proof? This will turn into a he said she said situation) to a "He intentionally mislead the government in order to [something bad, cheat on taxes, get through customs unlawfully, etc.]"

ScottBurson 14y ago

you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life. Perhaps. But if that's true, I don't know which laws they are or how I'm breaking them. Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding? You have completely twisted what I said. First, I said if someone can be prosecuted for signing a form prepared by government workers. You left that critical condition out entirely. Secondly, and more broadly, I'm not talking about government workers demanding absolute accuracy of us -- I'm talking about them demanding absolute accuracy of themselves. IANAL, obviously, but it does occur to me that once the customs worker encouraged Arrington to sign the form anyway, should he ever have been prosecuted for doing so -- which I agree seems unlikely -- he had, I would think, a valid entrapment defense. Of course, he probably had no proof that she said that, but being able to argue it might have been sufficient anyway. So I agree, he probably should have signed the form. But I don't really care about that. Arrington is not collecting a salary paid by my tax dollars; he is simply a citizen attempting to protect himself. Whether he made the right choice or not here is for him to figure out. What I care about is the behavior of my government, which I pay for and which claims to be acting on authority vested in it by its citizens, of which I am one.