Originally posted by Photos-by-Chas On the surface, she did nothing intentionally illegal, but the fact that her words and actions were done with probable knowledge of what would eventually occur, the results were an unnecessary series of actions and procedures that resulted in a very high cost to a wide group of people and organizations. Additionally it increased the likelihood of very serious results. Rather than labeling the complainer as less smart, stupid or even an officious intermeddler, maybe describe her as a person lacking common sense or logical thinking.
...
True. Reminds me of a criminal case in Virginia not too long ago. It's a felony to wear a mask in a public place in Virginia (a statute passed in reaction to the KKK practice), unless certain exceptions apply. The intentional act required under the plain terms of the statute is the act of concealing one's identity. In this case, a black man was protesting racism by standing on a prominent street corner with a sign and wearing a KKK outfit, including the hood, having no thought about concealing his identity. The "authorities" didn't like him doing that, so they charged him with wearing a mask in public. When it went to trial, the court cited the legal maxim (enshrined in Virginia's standard jury instructions), that "a person is presumed to have intended the usual and probable consequences of his acts", and the man was found guilty. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. Now as far as I know, that rule had never been previously applied in any criminal case, because it's a part of tort law (intentionally committed wrongful acts other than a breach of contract). In fact, there are cases that say it's a per-se violation of the right to due process to apply any presumption conclusively against a criminal defendant, and in this case, the defendant did rebut the presumption but the court pooh-pooh'ed his defenses (including the right to freedom of speech). So now, no exception to the felony statute can apply, because anyone engaged in, say, dentistry, is conclusively deemed to have intended to conceal his identity by wearing a mask and is therefore a felon. And what about all those people who are wearing masks because they want to feel safe from viral disorders? All guilty as felons and probably headed for five years in the penitentiary.
And, if that conclusive presumption can really apply, other than to punish a black man for protesting racism, then the intentional act of making a report to police that turned out to be false (it was the act of reporting that was intentional) then it could well be a criminal act where I live.