|
Post by trubble on Jan 25, 2009 13:38:50 GMT
The site may be bogus, I don't know, it's just there. I'll see if I can watch the tv documentary/reports they quote on that site because it doesn't seem to be just them, it seems to be the press involved. I googled Roger. Why is that a "classic example of the credibility of these sites"? the innocent executed nutjobs were ecstatic with coleman. he was going to prove once and for all that an innocent had been executed. read some of the idiocy they were spouting. they put all their eggs in the coleman basket, and it was funnier than all hell when it was smeared all over their stupid faces. same same for the rest I see.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 25, 2009 13:41:17 GMT
facts and actual occurrences are the ONLY things that matter, period I see. This reminds me of the wind discussion again. Only this time you might be on my side! This is completely untrue in the world of law and courts and sentencing.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 25, 2009 15:53:26 GMT
I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs help you, but I think they're insane. I have seen no evidence of miracles here on earth. I have seen no evidence of angels, or any kind of divine intervention. We shall have to agree to disagree (and as Obama might say, without being disagreeable.) Dear riotgrrl, if you don't mind my asking, have you sought out this info? There's many books about unexplained healings, sightings of angels, etc. There are photographs of fairies and the experts cannot work out how exactly they were faked. Having been blown away by Wim Wenders' two films about angels in Berlin, I would love to believe in them. (Sorry I can't remember the names of the two films.) But I can't help but feel a little cynical, on account of the complete lack of scientific proof.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 25, 2009 16:42:38 GMT
The Cottington fairies were just paper and Conan-Doyle believed in them, he also believed in Spiritualists. I think clever people look for answers, believe in the 'something else' apart from this world, because this world is so amazing, never mind the universe, it's all mind-blowing, and if you're someone that needs answers you can't just sit back and be happy to accept that you'll never actually know the answer to a lot of important questions.
That's why science is so exciting, it moves so quickly, it gives hope to explaining at least a little of what's going on.
Sometimes I use fairies or god or 'someone's watching over you' to explain away wonderful or even just odd things, even though I know it's not true, I can never just shrug and say 'who knows?', it's like a need to give the unknown a name.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 25, 2009 16:45:17 GMT
Riotgirl, You understood correctly. IMO Angels do exist and are active in our world. They also are here to protect us. Humans cannot die and then become angels bc angels are a different phylum or species. Testiments to angels are the many miracles humans experience here on earth. I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs help you, but I think they're insane. I have seen no evidence of miracles here on earth. I have seen no evidence of angels, or any kind of divine intervention. We shall have to agree to disagree (and as Obama might say, without being disagreeable.) How do you define a miracle? Is it something simply so out of the ordinary, unlikely and violating the laws of statistical probability that you find it hard to believe it took place? Or do you define it as something that violates what you think of as the laws of nature?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 25, 2009 17:38:45 GMT
facts and actual occurrences are the ONLY things that matter, period I see. This reminds me of the wind discussion again. Only this time you might be on my side! This is completely untrue in the world of law and courts and sentencing. you have a lot to learn about the law. start by googling "implied malice". i don't know where you got the idea that what you actually intend to do is somehow relevant, but, it's not. anyway, after you learn implied malice, we will move on to the felony murder rule
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 25, 2009 23:28:09 GMT
I see. This reminds me of the wind discussion again. Only this time you might be on my side! This is completely untrue in the world of law and courts and sentencing. you have a lot to learn about the law. start by googling "implied malice". i don't know where you got the idea that what you actually intend to do is somehow relevant, but, it's not. anyway, after you learn implied malice, we will move on to the felony murder rule I don't think I can be bothered, it's nonsensical to say intention never matters...I'm not an expert in American courts - last I heard there were different degrees of murder but I could be out of date - in sensible countries if you were trying to save someone's life but accidentally killed them you would be treated differently than if you had set out to kill them. Are we talking about 2 different things, because I know I'm not talking shit.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 26, 2009 14:14:31 GMT
you have a lot to learn about the law. start by googling "implied malice". i don't know where you got the idea that what you actually intend to do is somehow relevant, but, it's not. anyway, after you learn implied malice, we will move on to the felony murder rule I don't think I can be bothered, it's nonsensical to say intention never matters...I'm not an expert in American courts - last I heard there were different degrees of murder but I could be out of date - in sensible countries if you were trying to save someone's life but accidentally killed them you would be treated differently than if you had set out to kill them. Are we talking about 2 different things, because I know I'm not talking shit. what does accidently killing someone while trying to save them have to do with anything? i gave you a couple of examples. first, yes, there are different degrees of murder. first degree murder carries the death penalty or life in prison. in most states, second degree murder carries anywhere from five years to life. if anyone dies, for ANY reason, while you are committing a felony, robbery, burglary, etc, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. it doesn't matter whether or not you intended for anyone to die. you intended to commit the felony, and that is the ONLY intention that matters. if you drive your friend down to rob the store, and during the getaway, you hit a pole and your friend dies, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should be, executed. if you and your friend break into my house, and i shoot and kill your friend, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. really simple.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 26, 2009 18:33:51 GMT
I don't think I can be bothered, it's nonsensical to say intention never matters...I'm not an expert in American courts - last I heard there were different degrees of murder but I could be out of date - in sensible countries if you were trying to save someone's life but accidentally killed them you would be treated differently than if you had set out to kill them. Are we talking about 2 different things, because I know I'm not talking shit. what does accidently killing someone while trying to save them have to do with anything? i gave you a couple of examples. first, yes, there are different degrees of murder. first degree murder carries the death penalty or life in prison. in most states, second degree murder carries anywhere from five years to life. if anyone dies, for ANY reason, while you are committing a felony, robbery, burglary, etc, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. it doesn't matter whether or not you intended for anyone to die. you intended to commit the felony, and that is the ONLY intention that matters. if you drive your friend down to rob the store, and during the getaway, you hit a pole and your friend dies, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should be, executed. if you and your friend break into my house, and i shoot and kill your friend, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. really simple. I think Trubble's point was that in American criminal law (as in most systems derived from or influenced by English common law) INTENTION is a key legal concept. Actus reus alone does not constitute a crime; there must also be mens rea. Consider the possibility that you may be wrong and Trubble may be correct.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 26, 2009 19:02:18 GMT
Thank you Riotgrrl. I would have liked to have made my point as succinctly as that because that is indeed my point.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 26, 2009 19:09:40 GMT
I don't think I can be bothered, it's nonsensical to say intention never matters...I'm not an expert in American courts - last I heard there were different degrees of murder but I could be out of date - in sensible countries if you were trying to save someone's life but accidentally killed them you would be treated differently than if you had set out to kill them. Are we talking about 2 different things, because I know I'm not talking shit. what does accidently killing someone while trying to save them have to do with anything? i gave you a couple of examples. first, yes, there are different degrees of murder. first degree murder carries the death penalty or life in prison. in most states, second degree murder carries anywhere from five years to life. if anyone dies, for ANY reason, while you are committing a felony, robbery, burglary, etc, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. it doesn't matter whether or not you intended for anyone to die. you intended to commit the felony, and that is the ONLY intention that matters. if you drive your friend down to rob the store, and during the getaway, you hit a pole and your friend dies, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should be, executed. if you and your friend break into my house, and i shoot and kill your friend, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. really simple. I really think we aren't discussing the same thing. I am sure you are right in the thing you're discussing and I am right in mine.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 19:35:03 GMT
trubble and riotgrrl.
The only piece of advice I can give you is this. I have tried to understand the logic of US law, and indeed custom, morals, politics. So I have looked to my brother, who has lived in the USA and is married to an American, for an explanation of many of these things.
He just opens his arms, shrugs his shoulders, looks at me as if I am an idiot and says "Don't try to understand it. It's AMERICAN!"
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 26, 2009 22:45:41 GMT
what does accidently killing someone while trying to save them have to do with anything? i gave you a couple of examples. first, yes, there are different degrees of murder. first degree murder carries the death penalty or life in prison. in most states, second degree murder carries anywhere from five years to life. if anyone dies, for ANY reason, while you are committing a felony, robbery, burglary, etc, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. it doesn't matter whether or not you intended for anyone to die. you intended to commit the felony, and that is the ONLY intention that matters. if you drive your friend down to rob the store, and during the getaway, you hit a pole and your friend dies, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should be, executed. if you and your friend break into my house, and i shoot and kill your friend, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. really simple. I think Trubble's point was that in American criminal law (as in most systems derived from or influenced by English common law) INTENTION is a key legal concept. Actus reus alone does not constitute a crime; there must also be mens rea. Consider the possibility that you may be wrong and Trubble may be correct. don't worry. I'M right. just for kicks, this is california's murder statute. it is a relatively good example, although there are states that don't go as far with implied malice, and many states that go much further. california has sentenced several to death, but not executed any, under the felony murder rule for quite a few years. texas, being more civilized, HAS executed quite a few. read teh law and get back to me. www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 26, 2009 22:53:21 GMT
what does accidently killing someone while trying to save them have to do with anything? i gave you a couple of examples. first, yes, there are different degrees of murder. first degree murder carries the death penalty or life in prison. in most states, second degree murder carries anywhere from five years to life. if anyone dies, for ANY reason, while you are committing a felony, robbery, burglary, etc, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. it doesn't matter whether or not you intended for anyone to die. you intended to commit the felony, and that is the ONLY intention that matters. if you drive your friend down to rob the store, and during the getaway, you hit a pole and your friend dies, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should be, executed. if you and your friend break into my house, and i shoot and kill your friend, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. really simple. I really think we aren't discussing the same thing. I am sure you are right in the thing you're discussing and I am right in mine. huh uh. WE are talking about the reality that it is WHAT you do, not why you do it, or even if that is what you actually intend to do, that determines a crime and punishment. as you can see in the california statute, while mitigating factors can be considered, it is ENTIRELY incumbent upon the defendant to PROVE them. the prosecution does NOT have to show that there are not any.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 26, 2009 22:54:25 GMT
trubble and riotgrrl. The only piece of advice I can give you is this. I have tried to understand the logic of US law, and indeed custom, morals, politics. So I have looked to my brother, who has lived in the USA and is married to an American, for an explanation of many of these things. He just opens his arms, shrugs his shoulders, looks at me as if I am an idiot and says "Don't try to understand it. It's AMERICAN!" that is why, when you want true, total logic, you have to look to america
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 27, 2009 0:17:01 GMT
I really think we aren't discussing the same thing. I am sure you are right in the thing you're discussing and I am right in mine. huh uh. WE are talking about the reality that it is WHAT you do, not why you do it, or even if that is what you actually intend to do, that determines a crime and punishment. as you can see in the california statute, while mitigating factors can be considered, it is ENTIRELY incumbent upon the defendant to PROVE them. the prosecution does NOT have to show that there are not any. factors such as 'did this person intend to kill that person that day?'
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2009 6:46:03 GMT
ianjumbo, I accept that you know more about American law than I do. Perhaps you know more about English law than I do too, for mine (though once quite up to date) is a trifle rusty.
But you say "if anyone dies, for ANY reason, while you are committing a felony, robbery, burglary, etc, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed"
This is not the case in English law. If I break into a house and accidentally knock a vase off the windowsill, I would be guilty of criminal damage to the vase I think. Murder is different though, and "intention" has a special significance. If I swung a chair around in a drunken state and hit someone, I would be guilty of murder if I intended to kill him, even if I wouldn't have done so had it not been for the drink. The same applies if I kill during the course of a crime. If I neither knew nor cared that he was there I would be guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter.
If in climbing though a window to steal I fell down on someone sleeping an killed him, I think it would be manslaughter. But there would have to be some kind of causation, and probably some kind of foreseeable causation, I'm not sure.
The idea that a burglar will be guilty of first degree murder for any deaths which occur while he is committing a burglary (presumably you mean in the house he is in) is indeed a strange one. If his break-in happens to coincide with the passing of my granny, who is at that very moment receiving the last rites, his execution would seem somewhat unfair.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2009 13:38:17 GMT
ianjumbo, I accept that you know more about American law than I do. Perhaps you know more about English law than I do too, for mine (though once quite up to date) is a trifle rusty. But you say " if anyone dies, for ANY reason, while you are committing a felony, robbery, burglary, etc, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed"This is not the case in English law. If I break into a house and accidentally knock a vase off the windowsill, I would be guilty of criminal damage to the vase I think. Murder is different though, and "intention" has a special significance. If I swung a chair around in a drunken state and hit someone, I would be guilty of murder if I intended to kill him, even if I wouldn't have done so had it not been for the drink. The same applies if I kill during the course of a crime. If I neither knew nor cared that he was there I would be guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter. If in climbing though a window to steal I fell down on someone sleeping an killed him, I think it would be manslaughter. But there would have to be some kind of causation, and probably some kind of foreseeable causation, I'm not sure. The idea that a burglar will be guilty of first degree murder for any deaths which occur while he is committing a burglary (presumably you mean in the house he is in) is indeed a strange one. If his break-in happens to coincide with the passing of my granny, who is at that very moment receiving the last rites, his execution would seem somewhat unfair. you do have a version of the law of parties called, if i recall, the law of criminal enterprise, or something like that. obviously, it is sorely lacking in application. your notion that you are not responsible for each and every occurrence during your commission of a crime is indeed strange. in your example of your granny, he would not be charged with first degree murder, ONLY because she was already on the way out and receiving last rites. of course, if she had gotten up to get a glass of milk, and was frightened by the intruder and had a heart attack and died, then, obviously, he is guilty of first degree murder and should be executed. it is the malignant heart that is the determination. you demonstrate the malignant heart by committing a crime in the first place. i truly don't see what is so difficult to understand about such a simple reality. if you commit a crime, you are guilty of absolutely everything and anything that happens as a result of your choice to commit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2009 13:44:35 GMT
huh uh. WE are talking about the reality that it is WHAT you do, not why you do it, or even if that is what you actually intend to do, that determines a crime and punishment. as you can see in the california statute, while mitigating factors can be considered, it is ENTIRELY incumbent upon the defendant to PROVE them. the prosecution does NOT have to show that there are not any. factors such as 'did this person intend to kill that person that day?' as i said, that is totally irrelevant. the question is, did this person wilfully commit an act caused someone to die that day. another case, a month or so ago, we had the heartwarming story about the customer in a liquor store who shot and killed one of two pieces of shyt trying to rob the store. sadly, the other one got away. when he is caught, he will be charged with first degree murder, as well as attempted robbery, and hopefully, be given the death penalty. that is as it should be, and is, in the civilized world
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 27, 2009 16:53:08 GMT
factors such as 'did this person intend to kill that person that day?' as i said, that is totally irrelevant. the question is, did this person wilfully commit an act caused someone to die that day. another case, a month or so ago, we had the heartwarming story about the customer in a liquor store who shot and killed one of two pieces of shyt trying to rob the store. sadly, the other one got away. when he is caught, he will be charged with first degree murder, as well as attempted robbery, and hopefully, be given the death penalty. that is as it should be, and is, in the civilized world You don't give the death penalty to wreckless drivers who kill someone do you??
|
|