|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 16:42:09 GMT
i realize that you know nothing about the law, but, i truly do not understand why something so simple is so difficult for you to comprehend. once again, what is going on in a person's mind has NO relevance whatsoever. the thought in the person's mind to break into your house, or rob you, PROVES that the thought in the person's mind is to harm you it don't get any simpler than that If what is going on in a person's mind has no relevance then why does the law even talk about intent as there is no requirement for any? It is like talking about what proves a thief's favourite colour is blue but then saying that in law the thief's favourite colour has no relevance. So why worry about whether or not we can prove what their favourite colour is? of course intent is an element in every crime. where do you get that it is not? absent a conscious intent, the intent is implied. like i have told you, the action PROVES the intent, regardless of state of mind
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 16:43:53 GMT
Is crashing a car part of the robber's conspiracy? Is being shot by a police officer an act of the conspiracy? neither has anything to do with the subject You suggested that if my buddy dies in a car crash then I have murdered him. How is that not part of the subject?
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 16:48:27 GMT
I have no problem with a robber being held accountable for the heart-attack clerk's death either (although I think I would call it manslaughter) as the death is a result of the fear and stress the robber placed upon the victim. But that doesn't make the robber a murderer or a manslaughterer of their partner who is killed in defence by another party. If it was a justifiable use of lethal force then there was no murder. Why invent a crime that didn't occur then try to pin the non-existent crime on a person whose crime was something else and not that. the crime of murder DID occur. and it is NOT manslaughter, but first degree murder. what anyone else does has no relevance. the ONLY thing that is relevant is the fact that someone died, regardless of who, or the reason, during the commission of a crime. a simplified version just for you, the texas felony murder rule: (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense; (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense. (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy. Quoting the law does not justify it in principle. I can quote laws from all over the world that you would disagree with, including the ones against the death penalty, in Europe. I have not committed a murder because my buddy was shot in defence by the clerk. There was no murder. Unless if you or the law are using the term incorrectly. Did Humpty Dumpty write the laws in Texas? “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 16:54:28 GMT
If what is going on in a person's mind has no relevance then why does the law even talk about intent as there is no requirement for any? It is like talking about what proves a thief's favourite colour is blue but then saying that in law the thief's favourite colour has no relevance. So why worry about whether or not we can prove what their favourite colour is? of course intent is an element in every crime. where do you get that it is not? absent a conscious intent, the intent is implied. like i have told you, the action PROVES the intent, regardless of state of mind I get it from your insistence that what is going on in the person's mind is irrelevant, whereas the term intent is defined on what is going on in the mind of the person said to have intent. Now you may presume intent, which may be a perfectly reasonable assumption, but you claim that it can be proved that it exists when it doesn't and then say that the fact it doesn't exist is irrelevant. Also even if you could prove an intent to commit crime A, that does not automatically also prove an intent to commit every other crime on the statute books. My act of stealing your pen does not, alone, prove my intent to murder anyone.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 17:48:22 GMT
of course intent is an element in every crime. where do you get that it is not? absent a conscious intent, the intent is implied. like i have told you, the action PROVES the intent, regardless of state of mind I get it from your insistence that what is going on in the person's mind is irrelevant, whereas the term intent is defined on what is going on in the mind of the person said to have intent. Now you may presume intent, which may be a perfectly reasonable assumption, but you claim that it can be proved that it exists when it doesn't and then say that the fact it doesn't exist is irrelevant. Also even if you could prove an intent to commit crime A, that does not automatically also prove an intent to commit every other crime on the statute books. My act of stealing your pen does not, alone, prove my intent to murder anyone. yes, it does, which is precisely why i am allowed to kill you
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 17:51:55 GMT
the crime of murder DID occur. and it is NOT manslaughter, but first degree murder. what anyone else does has no relevance. the ONLY thing that is relevant is the fact that someone died, regardless of who, or the reason, during the commission of a crime. a simplified version just for you, the texas felony murder rule: (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense; (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense. (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy. Quoting the law does not justify it in principle. I can quote laws from all over the world that you would disagree with, including the ones against the death penalty, in Europe. I have not committed a murder because my buddy was shot in defence by the clerk. There was no murder. Unless if you or the law are using the term incorrectly. Did Humpty Dumpty write the laws in Texas? “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” except, the laws in europe and the other places are morally wrong. the ONLY correct definition of intent is what is written in the statute. the ONLY relevant question is, would your buddy have been killed if you and he were not committing a crime? NOTHING else matters. since the answer is no, your buddy was ONLY killed because you were committing a crime, that means that you murdered him nothing simpler than that
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 17:52:52 GMT
neither has anything to do with the subject You suggested that if my buddy dies in a car crash then I have murdered him. How is that not part of the subject? THAT is part of the subject. whether or not you were driving is NOT again, what is difficult to comprehend. when you intend to commit a crime, you are guilty of anything, and EVERYTHING that is the result of your action in committing the crime. it doesn't matter whether or not any of it ever crossed your mind
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 20, 2012 10:54:58 GMT
I get it from your insistence that what is going on in the person's mind is irrelevant, whereas the term intent is defined on what is going on in the mind of the person said to have intent. Now you may presume intent, which may be a perfectly reasonable assumption, but you claim that it can be proved that it exists when it doesn't and then say that the fact it doesn't exist is irrelevant. Also even if you could prove an intent to commit crime A, that does not automatically also prove an intent to commit every other crime on the statute books. My act of stealing your pen does not, alone, prove my intent to murder anyone. yes, it does, which is precisely why i am allowed to kill you Then you and/or Texas law do not know what the terms prove and intent mean, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 20, 2012 11:13:18 GMT
Quoting the law does not justify it in principle. I can quote laws from all over the world that you would disagree with, including the ones against the death penalty, in Europe. I have not committed a murder because my buddy was shot in defence by the clerk. There was no murder. Unless if you or the law are using the term incorrectly. Did Humpty Dumpty write the laws in Texas? “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” except, the laws in europe and the other places are morally wrong. In your opinion. But the point remains that quoting law is not in itself a defence of anything. Just because Humpty Dumpty writes a law in Texas it does not mean that he is using the terms he uses correctly. P.S. You say that a thief's life is worth nothing, that it is your moral duty to kill a thief, that there is no rational reason not to etc etc. So if my buddy being killed by the clerk means that I killed him, then rather than pinning a murder charge on me (of a life that was worth nothing), shouldn't they be pinning a medal on me instead.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2012 11:37:53 GMT
yes, it does, which is precisely why i am allowed to kill you Then you and/or Texas law do not know what the terms prove and intent mean, I'm afraid. sorry about your luck. obviously, it is you who do not understand the law.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2012 11:38:59 GMT
except, the laws in europe and the other places are morally wrong. In your opinion. But the point remains that quoting law is not in itself a defence of anything. Just because Humpty Dumpty writes a law in Texas it does not mean that he is using the terms he uses correctly. P.S. You say that a thief's life is worth nothing, that it is your moral duty to kill a thief, that there is no rational reason not to etc etc. So if my buddy being killed by the clerk means that I killed him, then rather than pinning a murder charge on me (of a life that was worth nothing), shouldn't they be pinning a medal on me instead. don't be daft. you're not that stupid
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 22, 2012 15:14:59 GMT
Then you and/or Texas law do not know what the terms prove and intent mean, I'm afraid. sorry about your luck. obviously, it is you who do not understand the law. I do understand your explanations of what the law is saying, which is how I know that it is using words incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 22, 2012 15:19:00 GMT
don't be daft. you're not that stupid It is easy to insult rather than explain a putative discrepancy.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 23, 2012 10:41:57 GMT
don't be daft. you're not that stupid It is easy to insult rather than explain a putative discrepancy. i was not insulting you. i was telling you NOT to be stupid, as your little example clearly is, as well as totally irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 23, 2012 10:43:07 GMT
sorry about your luck. obviously, it is you who do not understand the law. I do understand your explanations of what the law is saying, which is how I know that it is using words incorrectly. and, you're obviously in error. if you understood what the law says, you couldn't make that last comment
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 23, 2012 18:38:23 GMT
The word 'intent' has a definition which describes what is in a person's mind.
The law may define circumstances in which intent can be presumed to exist, that is, circumstances which the law decide are indicative of the existence of certain things in a person's mind.
The two things are separate. The latter is not a definition of the word intent, it defines when it can be presumed to exist.
So to have intent I have to have intent in my mind. I may be within circumstances for which the law decides that it may be presumed that I have intent, but again that is a separate matter from whether I have it. I may not, but nevertheless the evidence is such that it can be presumed that I have.
All of this would be fine except that you have declared that it is it NOT the case that due to my circumstances certain things are presumed to be going on in my head. You have declared that certain circumstances prove absolutely that I have intent irrespective of what is going on in my mind.
So either the law is using a special definition of intent which does not rest on a person's er, intent, or the proof is not absolute as it could be wrong in some cases.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 24, 2012 9:14:36 GMT
The word 'intent' has a definition which describes what is in a person's mind. The law may define circumstances in which intent can be presumed to exist, that is, circumstances which the law decide are indicative of the existence of certain things in a person's mind. The two things are separate. The latter is not a definition of the word intent, it defines when it can be presumed to exist. So to have intent I have to have intent in my mind. I may be within circumstances for which the law decides that it may be presumed that I have intent, but again that is a separate matter from whether I have it. I may not, but nevertheless the evidence is such that it can be presumed that I have. All of this would be fine except that you have declared that it is it NOT the case that due to my circumstances certain things are presumed to be going on in my head. You have declared that certain circumstances prove absolutely that I have intent irrespective of what is going on in my mind. So either the law is using a special definition of intent which does not rest on a person's er, intent, or the proof is not absolute as it could be wrong in some cases. the point is that, intent is an element of the crime. you have tried to claim that we can't presume that a burglar has intent to harm. i simply explained to you that what is actually in the burglar's mind has NO relevance to anything. the act of breaking into your house proves intent to harm, which allows you to kill it without bothering to inquire as to its intentions
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 24, 2012 11:52:35 GMT
you have tried to claim that we can't presume that a burglar has intent to harm. i simply explained to you that what is actually in the burglar's mind has NO relevance to anything. the act of breaking into your house proves intent to harm, which allows you to kill it without bothering to inquire as to its intentions I don't disagree with that when talking about what is presumed.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 24, 2012 13:21:45 GMT
you have tried to claim that we can't presume that a burglar has intent to harm. i simply explained to you that what is actually in the burglar's mind has NO relevance to anything. the act of breaking into your house proves intent to harm, which allows you to kill it without bothering to inquire as to its intentions I don't disagree with that when talking about what is presumed. the presumption IS proof
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 24, 2012 15:35:46 GMT
If I presume that you plan to launch a nuclear attack on Washington because I saw you jay-walking then my presumption of the former is the proof of it?
I suspect it is more the other way around: the presumption is derived from the available proof.
|
|