• Transporter Room 3
    link
    fedilink
    English
    424 months ago

    Weird, I’ve literally always heard “ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law”, which seems to imply criminal intent doesn’t matter. Only that the action that was take was illegal.

    • @Maggoty
      link
      English
      154 months ago

      There are strict liability crimes. Like if you admit to shooting someone but maintain it was an accident. You won’t get a murder charge, (or murder 1 depending on state) but you are going to get time in prison.

    • @spongebue
      link
      English
      134 months ago

      It’s not intent to break the law, it’s intent to do what you did. If I walk out of a store with a can of tuna I didn’t pay for, that’s shoplifting, right? Well, not necessarily.

      If I walk into a store, pick it up off the shelf, hide it in my jacket, and dart for the exit, probably.

      If my toddler slipped it into my jacket pocket, and I didn’t notice, probably not.

      If I put it in my jacket pocket because my toddler started to run away, I forgot about it, and paid for a cart of groceries… Maybe? But unlikely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t an accident.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        It’s not intent to break the law, it’s intent to do what you did. If I walk out of a store with a can of tuna I didn’t pay for, that’s shoplifting, right? Well, not necessarily.

        But they did mean to take pictures of minors in the privacy of their bedrooms in the name of stopping petty theft which I’m doubtful would have occurred on any meaningful scale in the first place. Whether they meant it “criminally” seems immaterial here. I think they got off exceptionally light, and it’s a travesty of justice. You won’t convince me otherwise.

        • @spongebue
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          If I won’t convince you otherwise there’s not much point in discussing anything. I’ll throw out one point I mentioned in another comment nonetheless…

          From what I remember of this school district’s case, the laptops were assigned the laptops for free to use at school. If they wanted to take the laptops home, they needed to pay an additional fee for extra insurance costs. This student did not. There is a reasonable argument that the school was tracking down its missing property. Maybe you won’t be convinced otherwise, but a jury (really, a single jury member) very well could.

    • @Lost_My_Mind
      link
      English
      74 months ago

      Well…you see…here’s the thing…

      Fuck you!

      ~Sincerely, the rich and elite, which control the legal system which is not meant to ever be in YOUR favor. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

      • @ChickenLadyLovesLife
        link
        English
        14 months ago

        The thing is, those people working IT at this school aren’t members of the rich elite or else they wouldn’t be working there. The parents of the children spied on are members of the rich elite, so it’s strange that their concerns got tossed in the dumpster here.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      54 months ago

      You (and I) are, unfortunately, not rich enough to ignore the law. Seems some others are.