Is there a good way to clarify between theoretical "what exactly does the law say" and "what could practically happen in the real world" questions?

Question

I have asked a question about the law wrt police and fraud. I tried from the start to make it clear that I was asking a theoretical about the law, rather than a practical question about what would happen in the real world. However, from the initial comments and first two answers it was clear I failed, and I attempted to clarify my question.

This resulted in my edits being reverted and the question locked. It is not clear to me why, but it seems to be down to the lack of clarity between these two types of question.

Is there a better way to make this sort of distinction? Could we use tags to allow one to be explicit about the sort of question one is asking? Is there something obvious I did wrong in this question or its edits?

[EDIT] To be clear about the situation, I edited two paragraphs:

Original:

In the real world we do not know what happened, or what the PC believed. Here we consider the hypothetical where this was on body cam footage, including an assurance by the PC that reimbursement was certain and a non-public comment showing the PC understood that reimbursement was unlikely because there was no negligence.

I added:

Assume the PC said to the OP "You will defiantly be reimbursed if you pay" and then to their colleague "They will never get reimbursed as their is no negligence".

Original:

It would seem that the story as told would meet this definition. Is this correct reading of the law? Is there another clause that would protect the PC in this instance?

I added:

Note this question is not about proof or evidence, assume the facts of the matter were not in dispute.

If these additions fundamentally changed the question I do not see it.

Answer 1

I think your question falls into the problem associated with point 4 here:

Avoid making assertions about how the world is or what the law is. The more you try to tell us how things really are, the less you're asking a question.

While it it not breaking any rules or policy to do so, referencing a real-world circumstance will have the practical effect of drawing answerers and commenters to express views and base their answers on the facts as they understand them from that real-world circumstance.

Therefore, for clarity purposes, it is often more helpful to simply abstract out the precise facts that you want us to assume for the sake of your question.

E.g. assume facts: A, B, C. Question: does this make out the elements of fraud? (There are many ways to do this, and this is just one approach. No need to follow a formula.)

Answer 2

Ask the question you want answered

If you want to know what the law says, ask that question, don’t give us a story about specific facts. Or, since you actually quoted the law, (so you know what it says), ask what it means.

If you want to know how the law applies to specific facts, state the facts, don’t tell a story. That is, tell us what the defence and prosecution agree on or what a judge/jury has decided, don’t give evidence and ask us to be the judge/jury.

So, though you did that, but the answers you’re getting show that your question as written didn’t match your question as intended. Good. Now you can ask a more focused question. Questions are free, ask as many as you want.

Answer 3

Edits invalidating answers are prohibited

Your edits invalidated two answers that were based on exactly what you wrote - or rather what you did not write. Nowhere was an indication that the officer fulfilled more elements of fraud, but that the information was false, and because the law is set up in case of doubt, for the defense those answers were legally the only correct ones.

• Is there a policy on editing questions to clarify them after answers have already there been posted?
• [META] Change to question invalidates my answer, what to do?

Make an explicit statement section

Make explicit what the situation was. You have a lengthy story, then some discussion, then a ver incomplete situation that relies on the story and then the law paragraph. That muddies the water what you want, and makes the story into the base situation. In fact, you did ask about the story, not any variation thereoff:

It would seem that the story as told would meet this definition.

Consider a section that just summarizes all the supposed facts:

Assume that Officer Alice wants to harm Bob. They know that C-town PD never reimburses someone for a new door. Alice tells Bob to pay for the door, C-town PD would reimburse them. Is that fraud?

You can ask a new question to your variation of facts.