Superlite27
Regular Member
Mens rea v Actus rea
If you open carry into a bank and they throw money at you because they think they're being robbed and didn't even wait for a demand then are you still guilty of robbing the bank?
If you are talking a walk in the park and come upon someone who, upon seeing your openly carried firearm falls to the ground, rolls over onto his back and pees himself like a little puppy because he thinks he's being robbed, ... are you guilty of either robbery, mugging, or assault?
Some crimes and many ordinances only require actus rea, whereas in serious crimes mens rea must be established.
I see what you're saying, and agree.
However, let's simply replace the officer with an inanimate object: A stop sign.
Now, the OP approaches the stop sign and drives right through it. Now: Does his reason for doing so alter his legality? "Oh, sorry officer! I misunderstood! I thought it said "proceed".".
Same difference: OP misunderstood officer's command/OP misunderstood sign. His intention is without regard, the only fact needed to make a stop is his non-compliance. If the officer WAS able to telepathically understand that the OP misunderstood, I can see your point in arguing Mens rea v Actus rea. but, how was the officer to determine this without telepathy? You argue that he shouldn't have conducted a stop?
Even so....since when has intention become a valid argument against obeying lawful orders? Not seeing a stop sign fails to give anyone a valid excuse for driving through them. Still illegal regardless of intent. Does this change when the inanimate sign is replaced by a live police officer?
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I still fail to see the validity of your argument that the officer had no business conducting a stop. The driver's intent has nothing to do with the legality of a traffic stop. Even if it did.....you still fail to explain to me HOW the officer is supposed to determine this without making a stop in the first place....unless: mental telepathy.