The test as quoted makes no sense. It’s always going to be difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against a government run amok. There is no scenario w

The test as quoted makes no sense. It’s always going to be difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against a government run amok. There is no scenario where a bunch of maniacs have taken over and you’re trying so save some innocent people and it’s easy to do. Thus I have interpreted it as “does the law make it more difficult to protect the innocent against the government if the government has gone crazy?” That seems like the more charitable interpretation, as it actually makes a little bit of sense until you bite into it.