Ignorance of the law = Executive "Get out of Jail Free Card"?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@AFAIKnow

:rolleyes: I think you are in the wrong forum for that attitude, bud.

I think Cliffy was being nice. It is and has been a common issue on these forums of people speaking “knowledgably” on a subject when in fact they have limited knowledge of it. A standard disclaimer of IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) or IANAD (the same as IANAL except for doctors) or other such notations are useful. Let people know if it is merely your layman’s understanding (even if a well informed one) or a professional opinion where you can claim expertise in the topic under discussion

If you actually read what was posted before, “should have known” was in quotes because it seemed to be the arguement of the OP.

You keep going on about “should have known” and held me to it. I should have caught it earlier but in fact I never said those words in my OP. I didn’t even say “should have” in the OP.

I guess the “should have” was implied though which is why I didn’t catch it the first time. Even so, as Cliffy mentioned “should” know legally means you are responsible for knowing it. If you do not but are expected to not knowing it will not be a defense.

In short I am not sure why you are stuck on this phrase and how you think it helps your argument.

I never said it was a defense in most cases. However, it is a defense. I was under the impression that ignorance was not a defense, myself, until I was directed to mens rea. I admit, I may have downplayed the “some exceptions apply”, but that doesn’t change the fact that ignorance is not a defense. If it wasn’t in this case, then it would not have mattered if the jury decided if he knew it was illegal or not.

I am not following this. We have, “I never said it [ignorance] was a defense in most cases. However, it is a defense.” This was followed a bit later by, “…but that doesn’t change the fact that ignorance is not a defense.”

Not taking you to task one way or the other…just not sure what you are getting at here.

[AFAIKnow]

@Whack-a-Mole

I think Cliffy was being nice. It is and has been a common issue on these forums of people speaking “knowledgably” on a subject when in fact they have limited knowledge of it. A standard disclaimer of IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) or IANAD (the same as IANAL except for doctors) or other such notations are useful. Let people know if it is merely your layman’s understanding (even if a well informed one) or a professional opinion where you can claim expertise in the topic under discussion

True, but this is Great Debates, not General Questions. Nor was the OP framed in the sense of “can any lawyers give me the straight dope on this”? If it was GD, or you had specifically asked for lawyers for a definitive answer on a point of law, I would have just lurked like I usually do, or at least used a disclaimer. Your OP was in the form of a debate, and in my eyes had a false premise. I did not go into the technicalities of the specific case like the lawyers here did. I was addressing what I considered the fallacy that ignorance was not a legal defense. Asking someone to shut up is never nice in a debate forum, it’s plain rude and anti-debate-ish… what? , unless the mods do it of course.

You keep going on about “should have known” and held me to it. I should have caught it earlier but in fact I never said those words in my OP. I didn’t even say “should have” in the OP.

I guess the “should have” was implied though which is why I didn’t catch it the first time. Even so, as Cliffy mentioned “should” know legally means you are responsible for knowing it. If you do not but are expected to not knowing it will not be a defense.

In short I am not sure why you are stuck on this phrase and how you think it helps your argument.

I don’t know a difference between “should have known” and “should be aware of”, If I mischaracterized your meaning I apologies. My point was that even if the prosecutor made such a case that it was in the job description of the defendant, it still had to be reasonable.

I am not following this. We have, “I never said it [ignorance] was a defense in most cases. However, it is a defense.” This was followed a bit later by, “…but that doesn’t change the fact that ignorance is not a defense.”

Not taking you to task one way or the other…just not sure what you are getting at here.

Take out the “not”. Sorry, I never proofread, just spell-check occasionally.