A Crash Course In Wrong Law

Via Ken Lammers at CrimLaw, who despite his wayward youth and misguided choice to move from defense to prosecution, likely based on the unfortunate kiln explosion, brings today’s version of “I can’t even.”

Wait, No, That’s Wrong-Right (4th Amendment by the Uninitiated)

Every time I watch something like this I find myself saying “No that’s not right”; “Wait that’s not how that works”; or “That’s right as far as it goes, but . . . “

This is a video by PBS Digital Studios, part of its crash course in government and politics series. The guy in the video is somebody named Craig. If you didn’t know better, you would think that pedigree would assure that the content of the video was reasonably sound. It’s not.

Ken gave it an epic double facepalm. I do too, but only because Picard never did a triple.

Don’t ask me to break it down, inch by inch, and explain what’s wrong. As Ken already said, it runs the spectrum of dead wrong to “as far as it goes.” It’s not totally wrong about everything, but law isn’t the sort of thing you can get half right and still expect to prevail. The automobile search in particular made my head explode.

The point is that you will not learn good law from this video, and the fact that non-lawyers put out a video that purports to teach the law and gets it very, dangerously at spots, wrong is a reflection of how the internet makes people stupider.  People will watch this video, think they have a clue, and act upon it.

“But, yer Honor, some video on the youtubes said I could,” is not a defense.

And that’s my crash course in internet law.

6 thoughts on “A Crash Course In Wrong Law

  1. Patrick Maupin

    “But, yer Honor, some video on the youtubes said I could,” is not a defense.

    The outcome from watching this particular video is just as likely to be the explanation to the defense lawyer that “I knew he could search my car, so when he asked politely, I politely agreed, since he was going to do it anyway.” (Which, I assume, is part of why your head is splattered all over the room.)

  2. wild bill

    My objection to the video is that the sound bites are spliced too closely together. You the listener don’t have enough time to digest the narrative on a very complex subject. There are no natural pauses.. It’s an inroduction to an important topic anout which most of us civilians are clueless. We implicitly trust LE which is not always trustworthy. The video is essentally useless. I walked away more confused than ever.

  3. Bruce Godfrey

    Appears, at first glance, to be be an homage to the commentariat at Avvo. They deserve at least one Bluebook cite, right?

    “Chad (Level 6 contributor at “Criminal Law”), http://www.avvo.com….. (last accessed Aug XX, 20YY.)”

  4. Tice with a J

    On the ‘net, you may view, at your leisure
    PBS’s new vid – a crowd-pleaser!
    So click play and relax
    But don’t search it for facts
    Or you’re likely to suffer a seizure

  5. Fubar

    Is your knowledge of law awfully vague?
    Then avoid pro se like the plague.
    Do you think rights are raffled?
    If the law has you baffled,
    Then you need a lawyer. Call Craig!

  6. Mort

    I tried to watch this, but this guy’s voice drives me batty.

    Could they not find anyone who didn’t have a speech impediment?

Comments are closed.