Edward Elhauge <ee@lever.com> said:
A counter-example might be: 1) Someone breaks down my door while I am eating. As per California law there is a REBUTABLE PRESUMPTION (embedded in statutory law) that my life is in danger and that deadly force is justified. Consequently, my response to the situation is ruled justifiable homicide.
Doesn't this need to be phrased more cautiously? As I understand it, you need to demonstrate to the jury that you feared for your life, and someone breaking down your door is not enough for that. Unlike in some other states, in California it is essential that there be a clear threat to your life.
2) Someone breaks down my door while I am eating. A feeble minded guest of mine shouts out "I don't think he's armed." Consequently, the police find that the man is either not armed or had a water pistol. I might do 5-10 for manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.
The phrasing of this makes me think that you and I have the same impression of the law, but that you just were a bit terse in phrasing #1.
Your example doesn't involve a law that requires knowledge or a state of mind to be guilty. Laws about the transport of illegal information do!
I tend to be concerned about arguments that don't take the infamous "ignorance of the law is no excuse" into account. That is, one needs to make a clear distinction between ignorance of the law and ignorance of the action itself. There have been times in this particular thread when I wasn't clear whether people were making that distinction. Doug