Ignorance of the Law is an excuse

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
If you live in Texas, this is the law on Culpability for any crime committed.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.6.htm

PENAL CODE


TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY


CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY


1.07 provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act.

Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.

(b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element.

(c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b), intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility.

(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:

(1) intentional;

(2) knowing;

(3) reckless;

(4) criminal negligence.

(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.

(f) An offense defined by municipal ordinance or by order of a county commissioners court may not dispense with the requirement of a culpable mental state if the offense is punishable by a fine exceeding the amount authorized by Section 12.23.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1219 (H.B. 970), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient.

(b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that:

(1) a different offense was committed; or

(2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Also, if Marijuana is part of your Religion, Religion gets Religious exemptions in Texas and in the US Generally via the First Amendment.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.110.htm

TITLE 5. GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY


CHAPTER 110. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM


110.003, a court shall give weight to the interpretation of compelling interest in federal case law relating to the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.



110.003 may assert that violation as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding without regard to whether the proceeding is brought in the name of the state or by any other person.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.



37;

(2) injunctive relief to prevent the threatened violation or continued violation;

(3) compensatory damages for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses; and

(4) reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and other reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the action.

(b) Compensatory damages awarded under Subsection (a)(3) may not exceed $10,000 for each entire, distinct controversy, without regard to the number of members or other persons within a religious group who claim injury as a result of the government agency's exercise of governmental authority. A claimant is not entitled to recover exemplary damages under this chapter.

(c) An action under this section must be brought in district court.

(d) A person may not bring an action for damages or declaratory or injunctive relief against an individual, other than an action brought against an individual acting in the individual's official capacity as an officer of a government agency.

(e) This chapter does not affect the application of Section 498.0045 or 501.008, Government Code, or Chapter 14 of this code.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.



110.005.

(f) A person who complies with an inmate grievance system as required under Section 501.008, Government Code, is not required to provide a separate written notice under Subsection (a). In conjunction with the inmate grievance system, the government agency may remedy a substantial burden on the person's free exercise of religion in the manner described by, and subject to, Subsections (c), (d), and (e).

(g) In dealing with a claim that a person's free exercise of religion has been substantially burdened in violation of this chapter, an inmate grievance system, including an inmate grievance system required under Section 501.008, Government Code, must provide to the person making the claim a statement of the government agency's rationale for imposing the burden, if any exists, in connection with any adverse determination made in connection with the claim.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.



110.006 tolls the limitations period established under this section until the 75th day after the date on which the notice was mailed.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.



110.006, sovereign immunity to suit and from liability is waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by Section 110.005, and a claimant may sue a government agency for damages allowed by that section.

(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), this chapter does not waive or abolish sovereign immunity to suit and from liability under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.



4, 5, 6, or 7, Article I, Texas Constitution.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.



110.002(b), this chapter does not affect the grant or denial of an appropriation or other grant of money or benefits to a religious organization, nor does it affect the grant or denial of a tax exemption to a religious organization.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
And btw, this isn't like you can drive 100 mph and then be like "Oh I didn't know speed limits exist" it has to be "I didn't know I was going 100 mph".

So when they say "Do you know how fast you were going?" JUST SAY NO.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
And driving isn't the best example, because they can say you are being reckless. But, for example, if you were in possession of some Marijuana or a Pill or something, you could say "I didn't know it was there" or if you actually didn't know it was there, then you aren't breaking any laws.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
And if you live in New Mexico, there is a law that says that "If a seed so happens to fall on the ground and a plant so happens to grow from it" then there is no crime. You have to have them in buckets or a lot of them being watered every day or something to be considered growing.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
This is what people working in court rooms are worried about during your case, they are at work when they are in court, and they have to play their roles so that we don't realize that court rooms aren't for them, they are for us. Because in some countries they just take anyone they want and no one knows where they go.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
"It is not the purpose of a Government to keep it's people in check, but the purpose of the people to keep the Government in check"
-US Supreme Court
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
There are judges that are more worried about making sure their lifestyle looks like that of a judge than they are actually being a good judge. And a lot of the time it's not even their fault. Look at the Law Schools, it's all just Frats, like the Geronimo skull and all that. A lot of them don't know anything about actually doing anything.

I have heard many lawyers say that they don't do writs. There are people in Prison writing writs (one person wrote writs in prison and later clerked for the DC Circuit court because of how good his writs were) and a Public Defender can't write a writ.
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
There are judges that are more worried about making sure their lifestyle looks like that of a judge than they are actually being a good judge. And a lot of the time it's not even their fault. Look at the Law Schools, it's all just Frats, like the Geronimo skull and all that. A lot of them don't know anything about actually doing anything.

I have heard many lawyers say that they don't do writs. There are people in Prison writing writs (one person wrote writs in prison and later clerked for the DC Circuit court because of how good his writs were) and a Public Defender can't write a writ.
200w_d (2).gif 200w_d (1).gif 200w (4).gif
 
Top