Light Breaking Law

My own answer to this question is that there are times when it is right to break the law. In this specific situation I am going through that light, especially if I believe my life is in danger. Here is my justification for going through the light and breaking the law: 1. the original intent of the lawmakers was not to stop everyone in all circumstances but to simply regulate the flow of traffic and avoid accidents. There would be no accident in this case since there are no other cars. Emergency vehicles go through lights regularly. Obviously I am not an official emergency vehicle. But a woman in labor could go through the light and might even be able to get a police escort along the way. I believe that while I am breaking the letter of the

His objection comes from the need to consistently apply legal principles in each situation. If it is acceptable for me to run through the light in this situation, then how can we apply the traffic laws with any integrity? Would there not be other situations in which a person might be able to argue that he is also free to ignore the law and run the light? Is it acceptable to go through the light only when one is sick? But how sick is sick? Should this only apply to sicknesses that might cause death or just any common illness? Should people with bad colds who just want to get home run through any light that impedes them? My reasons for ignoring the law are creating a dangerous precedent and securing a loophole for violating almost every traffic law on the books. If I do this it would become harder for us to continue to write the legal story of our society in a consistent manner. My personal agenda is breaking with the overall flow of the narrative of our legal system.

The repudiation of my position continues as Scalia glares at me in the way that only Conservative judges can glare. Why am I wasting his precious time with such foolish questions and simplistic logic? Why am I bringing up this argument about the intent of those who passed traffic laws? How can I possibly know their intent? We only know what they wrote. What does the law say about traffic signals? Is there any language there about possible exceptions like

Holmes may be the only support that I have in the argument. While he has nothing to say in defense of my appeal to a higher law, he is able to give me some pragmatic support. The whole purpose of the law is to be able to predict the outcomes of our legal system so that we can avoid the full force of the state coming down on our heads. In this respect I am safe. When I go through the light, because no one is there to see me, there is no danger of the force of the state coming to bear on my situation. I have effectively slipped through the cracks. In fact, my situation may not even rise to the level of an actual legal issue. Should I really worry about the law in this situation when I am the only one there at the intersection? It is almost like being the only person on the face of the earth at that moment. If I was the only person alive would I need the law at all? What are the legal issues, practically speaking? There are none. All I am facing is a brightly colored light and for that the law has nothing to say. What will the outcome be if I go through the light? Legally speaking, there is nothing to predict at all. Nothing will happen. Holmes thinks my question is pedantic and boring. Go through the light and be content that you have avoided the wrath of the