Here is a quote from Fantasywriter’s post.
“Good question. & if asked, not even the police officer would use the idiot defense. I.e.: ‘I pulled a burgundy car over because I thought the witness was so unreliable that when he/she said ‘tan’, he/she really meant ‘burgundy’.
That defense is unworkable b/c the next two questions would be, WHY did you think the witness said ‘tan’ but meant ‘burgundy’, and Did you make any effort to clarify the difference between tan and burgundy?
It’s an unwinnable hole. The only hope is to stop digging.”
Cops wouldn’t even be asked to justify it. You’re grasping at straws.
The idea that a witness could confuse ‘tan’ with ‘burgundy’ is a premise only a clueless person or a troll would champion. You could argue a witness could confuse ‘black’ with ‘white’. Those colors are as similar as ‘tan’ and ‘burgundy’. Nevertheless, some would say you really can confuse the two. The problem is, people who say that are disconnected from reality. In the real world, if a person is unable to differentiate between two diametrically different colors, then nothing else they say can be relied upon. They are simply worthless observers.