On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity >> 8xAGAINST. Isn't this duplicated in "misleading"? (Open to voting FOR >> if I'm missing something). > > This would criminalize even accidentally incorrect information if > published as part of an officer's duties, as opposed to just > intentionally incorrect information as in 2215. > > However, I'm not sure this would work with the UNAWARE criterion for > NOT GUILTY remaining in the rules.
My guess is that it would mean that if that a reasonably competent officer *should* have been aware of the mistake (e.g. someone pointed it out the first time and it was uncorrected the second time, or it was such a large mistake that the simplest check would have caught it) they couldn't say UNAWARE. -G.
