From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 19:26:46 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: pornography & the ``cypherpunk cause''
In-Reply-To: <ee@lever.com>
Message-ID: <9310140227.AA02879@netcom2.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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