Dezaad
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,057
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
I am attempting to find specific law wording, and am having a difficult time. However, there is certainly room for confusion. I say this because there are juvenile curfew laws which only require that juveniles be 'retired from public areas'. Since private residence yards and driveways are not public, they would be permissible under those laws. These are the laws for which people would have experience, since emergency curfews are exceedingly rare.
I am also inclined to believe that people often don't smoke inside their residence, and may often sit in their cars simply to have the radio to listen to or something. I think the automatic assumption that they understood they were 'breaking the law' is ridiculous, as is the assumption that they actually were breaking the law. No one has provided any evidence as to the specifics of the law at this point, even though people have asked. I for one would have absolutely thought I could be outside on my own property with no problem and there would be no reason for officers to be concerned with me. Why should they be concerned about people being at a private residence (retired from public areas)? They are not roaming around, after all. So, whatever the specifics of the actual law, confusion about the actual specifics wouldn't be surprising. After all, when you don't know the specifics, you fall back on expecting the laws to make sense. It isn't at all a stretch to think "Well, I am at a private residence and not roaming the streets so I am sure it will be ok"
I am also inclined to believe that people often don't smoke inside their residence, and may often sit in their cars simply to have the radio to listen to or something. I think the automatic assumption that they understood they were 'breaking the law' is ridiculous, as is the assumption that they actually were breaking the law. No one has provided any evidence as to the specifics of the law at this point, even though people have asked. I for one would have absolutely thought I could be outside on my own property with no problem and there would be no reason for officers to be concerned with me. Why should they be concerned about people being at a private residence (retired from public areas)? They are not roaming around, after all. So, whatever the specifics of the actual law, confusion about the actual specifics wouldn't be surprising. After all, when you don't know the specifics, you fall back on expecting the laws to make sense. It isn't at all a stretch to think "Well, I am at a private residence and not roaming the streets so I am sure it will be ok"