No such thing as a spirit of the law...all laws a written in the books and has no middle ground...if a law gets changed, that goes in the books too... The courts interpret the laws, nobody else... So as common citizens, we follow the laws, it's not for us to interpret or figure it's intent...

Well that makes it easy.

The spirit of a law is what that law is intended to accomplish.
The law itself sets the limits of that law but the intent is open to perception.

A definition of murder is to willfully deprive someone of their life.
People are killed by unwillful acts and those acts still result in death but are not considered murder.
The act of the law fits but the intent changes based on perception.

The reason a select few determine the intent is due to 'lynch mob' mentality of groups. Perception of intent is relative to the observer.

If someone takes aim and shoots your loved one in the head it is different from someone losing control on an icy road and plowing into your loved one.
While some may feel it is murder because that person shouldn't have been driving on that icy road like that there was no intention to kill your loved one. To the victim's survivor it may be considered murder but to the intent of the law it is not.

the laws define all that... manslaughter and murder are two separate things...the courts decide the letter, not anyone else...if you run a red light and kill a car load full if old ladies on their way to church, it's not a murder chrage, but a manslaughter charge, regardless of what anyone thinks...the courts don't make the laws, they interpret them...we don't make or interpret, but only follow them...that's why we stop at red lights...

I wasn't arguing with you?

If you are serenading your heart's desire from the street, outside her bedroom window in the early evening and not entirely unwelcomed by her, yet a conservative religious neighbour, primarily offended by courtship in a manner unsanctioned by their church phones police and complains, the officer in attendance may, once you have explained the full situation to him and absence of malice is established, ask you to move along under threat of a misdemeanor vagrancy charge called "unduly blocking a causeway" (standing on a public sidewalk causing a minor nuisance, basically), with, even if you gave vehement resistance would incur a maximum penalty of a $30 fine and a stern glare, but you couldn't really be arrested unless you turned aggressive. You could keep singing and cop the fine, with a stern glare.


Let's say you were doing exactly the same thing, at exactly the same volume, in exactly the same way but the girl is a complete stranger you stalked from the local mall after she rejected your advances and the tune you were singing was from Nick Cave's album, Murder Ballads. The girl doesn't want you there but it's a public street, you're not on her property. Nevertheless she's the one whom phones police attendance in fear of her life and explains this to them when they arrive. Now, under the letter of physical descript you're doing precisely the same thing as the previous example, serenading on a sidewalk in the early evening.
Well, the attending officer explains, placing a hand on his firearm and directing you with the other, you're under arrest for loitering with intent and causing public nuisance, put your hands on your head with fingers interlocking and drop to your knees and please, by all means go ahead and resist. After he has a nice chat with the prosecutor you might be looking at 30 days.


This is because first tier in application of law is the responsibility of judicial officers in attendance and that requires interpretation of the situation as given by evidence, to be used in court.

The law doesn't need to be interpreted. The situation does.

No such thing as a spirit of the law...all laws a written in the books and has no middle ground...if a law gets changed, that goes in the books too... The courts interpret the laws, nobody else... So as common citizens, we follow the laws, it's not for us to interpret or figure it's intent...

I’ve seen judges interpretations vary to such extremes that “ignorance of the law being no excuse” seemed like throwing you into a game without a handbook. Especially in corporate law, and especially regarding insurance matters.

The law doesn't need to be interpreted. The situation does.

the courts decide if the law has been broken, not necessarily the police...the polices job is to get people to the courts, not much else..

I’ve seen judges interpretations vary to such extremes that “ignorance of the law being no excuse” seemed like throwing you into a game without a handbook. Especially in corporate law, and especially regarding insurance matters.