That’s literally the basis of qualified immunity. If law enforcement gets a pass explicitly due to ignorance of the law, why wouldn’t their financiers? Further, if the punishment for the crime is a fine, then the law can only ever meaningfully punish the poor. The concept of law is working exactly as intended in this country.
Qualified immunity protects the police (or other state actors) from civil suits arising from their conduct while lawfully performing their duties. It does not shield them from criminal prosecution.
The civil suits that only have standing when there is criminal conduct already involved? You don’t get one without the other. The only practical difference to a member of the public is the legal standard needed to prove guilt. Seeing as the criminal justice deck is already stacked in the favor of protecting their own enforcer, the difference is moot. It remains one of the only legally viable defenses where ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse.
I did check myself before I posted that. In fact, if you type “intent is 9/10 of the law” into DDG, the entire first page of results gives you “possession is 9/10 of the law” instead.
But to be fair, I did see two examples of the intent version after scrolling through the first few pages.
“The police never informed me I was doing anything illegal before arresting me, so how could I possibly have known?”
Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense against breaking it in any other sector…
Ethical behavior is a thing for SO many reasons. One of them is it tends to keep you on the right side of the law.
That’s literally the basis of qualified immunity. If law enforcement gets a pass explicitly due to ignorance of the law, why wouldn’t their financiers? Further, if the punishment for the crime is a fine, then the law can only ever meaningfully punish the poor. The concept of law is working exactly as intended in this country.
That’s not what qualified immunity means.
Qualified immunity protects the police (or other state actors) from civil suits arising from their conduct while lawfully performing their duties. It does not shield them from criminal prosecution.
The civil suits that only have standing when there is criminal conduct already involved? You don’t get one without the other. The only practical difference to a member of the public is the legal standard needed to prove guilt. Seeing as the criminal justice deck is already stacked in the favor of protecting their own enforcer, the difference is moot. It remains one of the only legally viable defenses where ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse.
Note how they literally have a special exception
It can be. There’s a saying that intent is 9/10 of the law.
But, they definitely intended to fuck people over, so that’s a moot point.
I think the saying is that possession is 9/10 of the law.
But I agree. Of course they intended to fuck people over. That’s their job, pretty much.
No, it’s intent.
I did check myself before I posted that. In fact, if you type “intent is 9/10 of the law” into DDG, the entire first page of results gives you “possession is 9/10 of the law” instead.
But to be fair, I did see two examples of the intent version after scrolling through the first few pages.
I’m sure their legions of lawyers never warned them it might be illegal
I’m sure they did, but they felt that this was more profitable, even if they got caught.