Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution

Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:kZr3g.1281$fx.203598@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 
>
>
>    I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the exact wording of the law, but I
> had presumed it was something along the lines of "if you ignore the red
> light, you have to pay a fine, regardless of whether or not any harm
> actually came from you ignoring that red light". Also presumably, most
> of the time (e.g. when not in self defense), you're in trouble whenever
> you kill someone, regardless of whether red lights were involved or not.
> I figured you'd be charged with two crimes (manslaughter, and ignoring a
> red light), rather than being charged with one crime (manslaughter while
> ignoring a red light).
>
>    I suppose a police officer could loophole their way out of this by
> having the police department pay the fine (to themselves) on behalf of
> the officer.
>
>    - Oliver

I do not know the law in the United States, however in Canada, the
ability to break a non-criminal law is the same for everyone.  If you
were driving your child to the hospital, and it was life and death, so
you ran a light, for example, you can use the exact same provisions
available to an ambulance driver. You are also under a similar
obligation to use due care. I doubt, under those circumstances, that you
would be charged, actually. Precident law tends to apply in most of
those cases, and there is lots of it.  For example, in an emergency,
driving without a license can probably be gotten away with, or breaking
trespass laws, as was mentioned by Howard.

In the States, I believe that non-criminal equates to "not indictable".

It is criminal law that I was addressing, more than "rule" type
non-criminal law.  Treatment in court is seldom done on an "emergancy"
basis, so that type of arguement would seldom be usefull when it comes
to rights.

Donald