Ignorance of the nature of your action can be a valid defense. Ignorance of the law is not.
If I’m caught with an item that someone else stole and then sold to me, “I didn’t know it was stolen” is a valid defense. “I didn’t know it was illegal to buy stolen goods” is not.
Well, there you have it. If the selected jury is representative if the nation, you can know to a reasonable degree of certainty that 1/3 will not budge from “Not guilty”, that probably 1/3 will not budge from “Guilty”, and that the other 1/3 will be therefore irrelevant.
Between that and Trump’s power to pardon, it seems unlikely that anyone will be convicted. Even if it turns out to be provably so that they shot someone in the face.
The only thing possibly standing in the way is voter outrage, but we’ll see…
And nearly as fetching, I’ll bet.
Speaking of Conway, did you catch her ‘visual aids’ act?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n76grjN7QVg
I’ve seen the light! There is no collusion!
Don’t worry. I am pretty sure Aspenglow’s understanding of the “ignorance of the law” and “reasonable person” concepts are quite wrong.
Reminds me of Frank Underwood debating education.
[quote=“Blue_Blistering_Barnacle, post:948, topic:782799”]
Reminds me of Frank Underwood debating education.
[/QUOTE]That’s hilarious…I’ve never seen House of Cards before, but I may start watching it now. 
No, the columnist in question is not a lawyer. And it’s not a real, legal defense. That’s why I put in in quotes.
LOL, hand waving is always so persuasive. 
I had to stop because spouse expressed interest in watching with me, but then we did not follow through. So I only have season one under my belt. I think it was an uncharacteristic stumble for Frank Underwood. I don’t think you’ll find the series funny at all.
Hand waving? I don’t think you know what that means either.
Ok.
I quite clearly said you don’t know what you’re talking about and I based it on the wrongness of the words you typed. But you can easily show me to be the idiot by just giving a cite that proves this correct:
[Quote=Aspenglow]
my understanding is that proof is to the “reasonable person” standard, so if it can be shown that a reasonable person would or should have known it was illegal, then that’ll do
[/quote]
Cite within what context? An impeachment proceeding? A criminal prosecution? State? Federal?
I spoke to my own general understanding. You seem to have a specific scenario in mind, so perhaps it would be helpful for you to post a cite demonstrating on what your certainty is based that I am wrong.
I am comfortable that I understand the standard of legal proof within the meaning of reasonable doubt, meaning the “reasonable person” standard. I have no reason to believe the standard of proof would be anything else in criminal proceedings at any level of government except impeachment – and of that standard, I am less sure, because it seems Congress can decide what it likes. On what basis do you have a belief that the standard would be to something other than that for prosecution of Donald Jr.? His vulnerability to prosecution would be at the federal or state levels, would they not?
As for the “ignorance of the law” part of committing a crime, your and scr4’s points are well made, that it can be an element of proof for some actions but not others. I don’t disagree with them.
I am wrong that “knowingly” is an element of conspiracy, at least in the state where I encountered it. You don’t even have to know you were involved in a conspiracy to be convicted of it.
According to Paul Ryan, it is an affirmative defense if you are new to buying stolen goods.
What context? How is an impeachment or a non-criminal case remotely within the discussion? Why don’t you give a single context where what you said is correct?
“Ignorance of the law” principle has nothing to do with the “reasonable person” concept.
wiki:
When you are this wrong and clearly relying on hazy memory, I really am baffled that you’d defend your statement this much.
Yeah, I’ve heard a bit about the series, and I’m a big Spacey fan. Really, I don’t know why I never bothered to watch it before, other than that more imprtant things crowded it out.
Mike Pence’s spokesman won’t say if Pence met with Russians. Hmmm. Not too long ago, Pence said he was absolutely certain that no one in the administration ever did. Guess he didn’t tell his spokesman that.
Sorry for the delay in my response. That lawn wasn’t going to get itself mowed.
I think we are talking past each other. I see nothing in your definitions that is different than what I was trying to say in my earlier posts. I think I can see where we went sideways, but it would have been helpful if, instead of attempting to be withering, you could have expressed specifically what deficiency you thought you saw in my post.
I never said that I thought the “reasonable person” standard had anything to do with “ignorance of the law.” You’ll note that my first statement about ignorance of the law was in my post #935. I was responding directly to Fiveyearlurker’s question about if ignorance of the law can be a defense. According to your own Wiki cite, it cannot. So what can possibly be the problem there?
You and scr4 then stated your opinions about the interpretation of “ignorance of the law,” and frankly, I don’t see where your “clarification” changed anything about the accepted doctrine that you can’t use ignorance of the law as a specific defense for having broken a law. There can be extenuating circumstances such as scr4 pointed out, but as he said, it doesn’t change the underlying tenet.
I then responded in my post #940 to PatriotX’s point that in some cases, “knowingly” is a required element of proof. I interpreted his use of the word “knowingly” to mean “intent,” and within that meaning, he is absolutely right. I used conspiracy as an example, but I double-checked and it isn’t an element of conspiracy. As an example, however, in California, it is an element of the crime of aggravated mayhem. You can’t prove the crime of aggravated mayhem without proving that the defendant intended to cause someone a permanent disability or disfigurement, or deprive him/her of a limb, organ or member. In other words, that they knowingly caused someone a permanent disability or disfigurement, etc.
Warning: Link contains an unpleasant picture.
You’re the only one in the thread who assumed the law PatriotX and I were talking about was “ignorance of the law.” I wasn’t, and I don’t think he was, either, since he referred to “laws,” not “law.”
So do you now understand that my response about a “reasonable person” was not directed to the assertion of “ignorance of the law” as a defense? One response had nothing to do with the other.
Yeah, you and me are the only ones who want to be in this dumb argument. Not sure that proves your right so much as this is a stupid argument.