Mens rea is a component fact of guilt. There are different kinds of mens rea. The law or statue will usually define it. Some laws might require a mens rea of willful, that is you knew or at least expected a certain result form your actions and they it was criminal. Others might simply be 'negligent' like vehicular manslaughter, you reasonably could have known or reasonably should have know driving at excessive speed might result in the injury of others. There are other possible mens rea types as well.
My point is that even with a mens rea component a law can written that still more or less outlaws acting foolishly and the 'reasonably could have known' element covers simple ignorance of the law.
Can we insist that the Youtuber "should have known" that his video would go viral, that such response would encourage copycats and that such moronic copycats would take less safety precautions and thus hold him liable for the outcomes of those future incidents?
Am I stretching it too far?
Yes, because disarming law-abiding citizens is a well known and effective tactic to prevent street gangs and Mexican drug cartels who transport whatever they wish across the border from obtaining, possessing, and using guns against those same law-abiding citizens.
You have single-handedly solved all gun crime!
You win an internets!
I could refer you to this study as an example of the myth of the gun defense argument. Note that the article/study aren't advocating for gun control, just for a better understanding of the real data.
That's like saying a sports car should have more luggage space for that price.
No... this would be like a sports car with the following ports:
- Doors (to get in and out), equivalent to a UI
- Trunk (for storage), equivalent to the HDD and accessible via USB-C
- Gas Door (for power)
However, you can no longer open the hood, access the engine, replace/upgrade components. In fact, you cannot even change the tires yourself anymore. If you really need them changed you need to go back to the dealer but more than likely by the time your tires need replacing you should just be buying a new sports car anyway.
We are a Mac household here but Android smartphone users. Never liked iOS vs. Android. Still don't prefer Windows to OSX. But from a hardware standpoint, we've had to suffer because of Apple's desire to slowly remove everything useful from their hardware.
I don't want to have to buy external accessories for everything that should be built into my machine.
A judge is demanding a United States company to play by the rules of the United States? And you have a problem with that? US law is and should be the only law the judge needs to consider. If US laws are incompatible with other nation's laws, then don't blame it on the judge, complain to your legislators.
Another great reason for an inversion besides taxes.
"looking for 'counter-insurgency activity'" - what insurgency?
You can have counter insurgency activity without an insurgency. Perception is reality. All you need is a group of people who believe there is an insurgency in order to start a counter-insurgency movement. Groups like the anti-border crossing patrol volunteers, or even anti-muslim hate groups come to mind as people who may believe there is an insurgency already going on here.
Why are they looking at counter-insurgent activity? Shouldn't they be looking at insurgent activity?
A local / state militia could be considered a "counter-insurgent" group. The vigilante guys who wanted to patrol the US border could be a "counter-insurgent" group. It doesn't really matter whether they are insurgent or counter-insurgent. It is a group of people organizing and developing a capability to act in a planned, cohesive fashion when they feel threatened. Opinions change, sometimes dramatically. But that organization/training stays.
As such, I am not surprised they want as much info as possible on any organized and even loosely cohesive group of actors... you know, just in case...
What entity which is not part of the government should be involved in this and why?
That's been going on for a long time...
"We need a smaller government" -> "outsourcing to private consultants" -> "more power to those private consultants so they can function as an extension of the government" -> "more capable and effective private consultants" -> "more outsourcing to private consultants" -> "smaller government"...
For some, that would be a virtuous cycle... sigh...
"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.