Hacker News Reader

Using multiple logically inconsistent defenses is generally allowed in the US.

When you think about it, it'd really suck to be failing to prove what is in fact your complete innocence and not be able to advance other defenses that could at least get you a reduced sentence (or even acquitted—correct outcome, wrong reason).

The wikipedia article lists "My dog was tied up and I don't own a dog", which is on the face of it contradictory - But there can easily be legal nuance. For example, if I'm acting as a foster home or running a kennel, I can simultaneously advance evidence that "My dog" was tied up, while also advocating for lack of liability because "It's not my dog".

On the other hand, I've seen a ton of "I didn't do x, and even if I did do X it was acceptable because Y" where Y was the worse crime... that somehow still succeeded as a defense. Thankfully not in a court of law, but public opinion is weird.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com