That’s an incomplete idea, usually used by law enforcement in order to get more arrests or convictions.
Ignorance is very much a defense. A bad one yes, but no one can know everything. We are all quite ignorant of many things in general.
Ignorance is not a defense when it’s one’s job to know the things one is ignorant about. It’s incompetence without a doubt then. Criminal incompetence if it has victims.
But generally speaking, we’re all ignorant in many ways.
And it’s one thing to bring attention to it so one may become less ignorant, but quite another to punish someone because it’s on a subject one finds disagreeable.
Actually on the side of law enforcement here, accuser has to provide burden of proof. It’s pretty hard to prove how stupid and ignorant someone is or is not. Edit: It would make defense by ignorance the default plea and abused horrendously.
Only thing I think law enforcement gets wrong is THEY are allowed to take the defense of being ignorant of the laws they are supposed to be protecting. If anything a cop wrongfully charging someone with an offense and then admitting they didn’t know what they were talking about should result in a larger punishment for them, not less.
We’re not taking about simple incompetence anymore. It’s another kind of ignorance entirely to receive a mild correction for fucking up — in this case having a few comments removed, misrepresent the situation to strangers for validation, and choose to be ignorant despite all attempts to explain the fuck up.
Hanlon’s razor is an adage, or rule of thumb, that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Was ignorant, given proof that they were wrong, doubles down on statements, given more proof for assurance, continues to go with previously beliefs.
So they first defended a Nazi journalist and enabler, was given more context to explain they were defending that person who was found guilty of enabling the Nazi regime, and continued to act like giving Nazis any punishment was somehow the bad thing in that moment.
Ignorance is not a
defenseexcuse. With respect, take the L and learn from it.That’s an incomplete idea, usually used by law enforcement in order to get more arrests or convictions.
Ignorance is very much a defense. A bad one yes, but no one can know everything. We are all quite ignorant of many things in general.
Ignorance is not a defense when it’s one’s job to know the things one is ignorant about. It’s incompetence without a doubt then. Criminal incompetence if it has victims.
But generally speaking, we’re all ignorant in many ways. And it’s one thing to bring attention to it so one may become less ignorant, but quite another to punish someone because it’s on a subject one finds disagreeable.
The L is on both sides.
Actually on the side of law enforcement here, accuser has to provide burden of proof. It’s pretty hard to prove how stupid and ignorant someone is or is not. Edit: It would make defense by ignorance the default plea and abused horrendously.
Only thing I think law enforcement gets wrong is THEY are allowed to take the defense of being ignorant of the laws they are supposed to be protecting. If anything a cop wrongfully charging someone with an offense and then admitting they didn’t know what they were talking about should result in a larger punishment for them, not less.
We’re not taking about simple incompetence anymore. It’s another kind of ignorance entirely to receive a mild correction for fucking up — in this case having a few comments removed, misrepresent the situation to strangers for validation, and choose to be ignorant despite all attempts to explain the fuck up.
Was ignorant, given proof that they were wrong, doubles down on statements, given more proof for assurance, continues to go with previously beliefs.
So they first defended a Nazi journalist and enabler, was given more context to explain they were defending that person who was found guilty of enabling the Nazi regime, and continued to act like giving Nazis any punishment was somehow the bad thing in that moment.
Fair, I’ll take that.