whitegato777
Well-Known Member
If you miss read the arizona medical marijuana law wrong and end up breaking one of the rule does that eliminate all protection under the new law?
accidental rule breaking
- Thread starter whitegato777
- Start date
swaggersDlite
Well-Known Member
I don't think ignorance is a good defense. It's all a grey area so just be careful.
I believe he may be referring to Donations on Craigslist. Unfortunately your walking a very fine line and cant accept anything in value for your MJ. Donations for time are not good enough which seems to be the model for Craigslist. Then becoming a hot bed for police and UC. Its happening all the time; just no one ever talks about the outcome of these cases.
whitegato777
Well-Known Member
i read the law and the health department has final say when it comes to revocation of your card. so you guys know the medical marijuana act gives you certain rights of protection that can only be taken away by due process of the law as defined by the US constitution. so the police have no right to denied you any protection without being found guilty first.
whitegato777
Well-Known Member
charges dismissed to lack of possible conviction
cat of curiosity
Well-Known Member
congratulations!
Ignorance of the law is a valid defense in criminal cases. It stems from the principle of mens rea (a guilty mind. That a reasonable person should have known [act] is criminal. For example, if you murdered someone you couldn't say "oh, I didn't know that was illegal." The standard of mens rea would be met. But, for a violation of a technical detail, such as possessing stolen property, it is possible to have good intentions and simply be ignorant of the law.).
The phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" arises from civil cases. Just because you're ignorant of a trip hazard on your front walkway will never absolve you of your liability for injuries arising from that hazard.
HB DC
Active Member
Aristotle’s theory of voluntary and involuntary actions performed by man by which he is responsible is important because it seems, IMO, the platform from which the American legal system is based – ignorance of the law is no defense. Things done from constraint or ignorance are considered involuntary actions, while things free from force or pressure are coined voluntary actions. Whether involuntary or voluntary, one is responsible for his actions even if ignorance of the elements warrantied may have stopped the person from engaging in such action – no defense. The deed is done, the action was performed- involuntary or voluntary, and the actor is at fault for its result. In essence, a person is presumed to know or should have known the law and is responsible for the actions whether culpable or not.
"But for..."
Causation... Causal relationship between Conduct & Result.
To establish causation it is a 2 stage inquiry. #1 Factual causation & #2 Legal causation.
Did the Person act in the other persons loss? This must be establish First before #2 can be reviewed.
If #1 is deemed then a look into #2 - Does the law apply in some fashion?
Mens Rea is simply an element of causation which there is its counter-part - Actus Reus.
Actus Reus (An Action) + Mens Rea (State of Mind) = Sine qua non?
In most cases these elements need not matter for Actus Prohibitum dictates many matters not "But for..." Matters!
"Everything done by reason of ignorance is involuntary. The man who has acted in ignorance has not acted voluntarily since he did not know what he was doing. Not every wicked man is ignorant of what he ought to do and what he ought to abstain from; by such errors men become unjust and bad."
- Aristotle
Last edited: