Normally I would agree. I am a law abiding-citizen...pay my taxes, stop at stop signs, never murdered a guy...love the work cops do and respect them. However, as far as keeping up with laws, I must agree and disagree. It is our job to keep informed of them...after all we are the ones that must abide by them. However, I almost think that some enigma is purposefully left in the law.Originally Posted by JAFO
Here is my case >> when I was underage, I was under the assumption that it was legal to drink IF, and ONLY IF you did so with your parents' consent, and you did not drive for a 24 hour period. Why did I think that? I asked a cop, a member of the executive branch of government, figuring he had to know the law in and out in order to execute it...moreso than a citizen. That was his response, what I mentioned above. However, that raised some concern with some parents who I described it to. So I went back to the same cop (was campus police at my HS). He went as far as to tell me that he was at a local restaurant and a minor requested a drink with his rents' permission. When the manager refused, the cop interjected and told the manager the law, the drink was served. However, my point is this. I have since asked 3 other cops. 2 agree with the first cop to the most part, though they have never mentioned a specific period of time that one must not drive after. The other cop I asked said if you are under 21, the law says you can't drink.
Well, wanting personal clarity (and to drink b4 turning 21) I consulted the OK laws via the state website. All I could find was the first law under the alcohol section stating it is unlawful for anyone under 21 to drink. i have since sent a barrage of emails to the state asking for clarity, non of which have been returned.
Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.
Reply With Quote