4 ms·
"Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclope
by t0bia_s 3y ago
"Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live.
- mikrl 3y agoOk but I remember a few occasions where people have got off easy for being ignorant of the law. I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent” If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?
- t0bia_s 3y agoHow can I possible know 2 milions regulations, restrictions and laws that we now have in state where I live? It's not humanly possible.
- sobkas 3y ago> "Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live. In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. This is a misstatement of the rule. Qualified immunity applies if the alleged action would not have violated a "clearly established Constitutional right", which does not depend on the personal knowledge of the individual being sued. (It's also applies to all public employees/officers, not just police, though its application in the domain of policing has frequently been controversial.)