A tricky question of subjunctive mood or not.

IMO
The first version should stand because it captures the posible state of mind of the subject contemplating the legality of his actions. The second does not give that nuance and therefore performs a different semantic function.

Your dilemma comes from the contrived juxtaposition of two versions which only become equivalent divorced from the the rest of the temporal flow of the narrative. However, you as author must be the final arbiter of your intentions. In general your question is related to those views of grammar (syntax and semantics) which transcend the single sentence as the unit of analysis.

This applies to the actual author if not you.

You come at the question from an excellent perspective. Thank you for the well-thought out reply! It's true that I am not the author. I am the proof reader, and this particular issue was flagged for my review by the first two content editors of the manuscript; both felt that "were" did not sound right to them. But I'm not so interested in what "sounds" right. It's left to me to make the final decision about whether or not it IS right. And to me, that decision hinges on whether or not the construction can truly be considered to be in the subjunctive mood.

To your point, the scene as a whole (versus the single sentence) does add more clarity. This character actually IS certain that his actions are not illegal. There is nothing in the paragraph or scene that would imply he is doubtful of this. He's a police officer and knows the law well. So, in context, when I read the scene I get the idea that he is thinking to himself: "Well, this might be against procedure and might get me in trouble with my department, maybe even fired, but I know they can't actually take legal action against me or arrest me--so screw them. I'm going to do what I think is right."

Okay. Perhaps the word "contemplating" should not be applied to "his actions" per se, but rather to "a hypothetical scenario of dismissal due to actual illegality".

It occurs to me that "proof readers" may have similar problems to "translaters" in which stylistic considerations and intent can override traditional grammatical rules.

Yes, I do often feel that tension. I have to maintain the proper balance between upholding grammatical rules and honoring the author's intent. There are times when the two conflict, and the solution isn't as simple as deferring to the author's wishes. When doing freelance proof reading for self-published authors, sure. They can certainly have the final say. But in other cases, my position as the head of the proof reading/copy editing department requires me to balance the needs of the publisher with the desires of the author. The publisher has a strong need for consistency. What can be seen as artistic license on the part of an author can also be viewed as an error or lack of attention to detail on the part of the publishing house. Too many cases of that and the publisher develops a reputation for turning out poor quality products (a simplistic scenario I'm painting here, but it does play out this way in reality sometimes, as the "grammar nazis" can be ruthless and unyielding at times). Hence, I become a judge over when to "permit" the breaking of a grammatical rule and when to insist that it be adhered to. Not always a fun position! And when I decide that ignoring the particular rule is the best decision, I have to make sure I can defend the choice to the folks who actually pay me. (And that's not usually the author!)

"subjunctive mood" doesn't always mean that something is counterfactual/ irrealis.



From the context, I'd say that this is a hypercorrection.

He could get dismissed if anyone finds out, but it’s <not as if there is/was> anything illegal about his actions.

With 'is' the focus is on the ongoing state of his action npt being illegal. With 'was' the focus is on what he did.


"If I was you" is also the subjunctive MOOD. It's just not the subjunctive FORM.