Not sure that exactly correct
If you even think about doing a very bad thing and gather stuff to enable you to do the bad thing but get caught before you do your defence is not "I ain't done nufink"
You be the judge - sexual assault?
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
- Status
Not sure that exactly correct
If you even think about doing a very bad thing and gather stuff to enable you to do the bad thing but get caught before you do your defence is not "I ain't done nufink"
Conspi
Conspiracy to commit murder?Not sure that exactly correct
If you even think about doing a very bad thing and gather stuff to enable you to do the bad thing but get caught before you do your defence is not "I ain't done nufink"
What are you accused of exactly (in a country with an independent legal system)?Not sure that exactly correct
If you even think about doing a very bad thing and gather stuff to enable you to do the bad thing but get caught before you do your defence is not "I ain't done nufink"
um yeah you kinda did. its kind of implied in your argument based on what your whining about.
bullshit. you got called on making an insane statement and now your trying to walk it back.
which in this case is a blatant strawman. it was rather transparent what you were attempting.
not really. thats just the way agressive insecure people reassure them themselves about people who don't need to play these kind of games.
people generally view people as intelligent based on agreement. and i said no such thing. i was merely saying that just because you may have more likes doesn't automatically make you smarter or your arguments more valid.
not really
again calling bullshit. Why bring it up other wise?
its called an idiom
as a general rule i dont take advice from internet trolls[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Free advice from me:
- Don't come to a gunfight unless your guns are loaded.
- Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
- Don't come to a battle of wits unarmed.
Lone wolf
Not sure about America but in Australia if money found in a raid (large amounts) and no explanation of its origin is given - presumption, profits of crime
Police may suspect a crime (drug gun money laundering) but as far as I understand it can use generic crime, seize money and hand over to government
Bells
Staff member
Why shouldn't it be?
Because he is rich?
Do you think the laws should apply to everyone equally? Or do you think people with money should have a different set of laws for them, so that someone can, for example, steal from Bill Gates?
Pretty sure theft is still theft and thus, illegal.
If we were to follow your example, then someone stealing a person's car while that person is asleep inside their home and unaware that their car has been stolen, then no crime has been committed?
Theft is a crime regardless of whether the victim is aware of it or not.
Which brings me on to this next point, which really, is appallingly bad given the context of your argument:
This is a valid question, in your opinion?
What do you think the answer to that question is, sideshowbob?
Or we can consider both.
There is a reason why we have victim impact statements read out in court.
To even allude to a victim apparently being less of a victim or questioning if a crime has been committed against her while she "doesn't notice", which would imply she is incapacitated in some way, shape or form, is ludicrous. And dangerous.
I'll put it this way.
Say you and your family are asleep. Someone sneaks into your child's room, and lifts them out of bed and kidnaps them. Your child does not wake up during the whole thing. Is there a crime? After all, no one has noticed it.
He then drugs your child for days, so that your child is completely unaware of his or her surroundings and what has happened. Your child is returned days later, left sleeping in a petrol station.
Do you think we should be focusing more on what the kidnapper did? Or on how it affected your sleeping child?
What do you think should be more important?
I mean, has a crime been committed at all? After all, your child did not know what happened. Right? I mean, that's the standard you are applying here.
Now do you understand the outrage?
Eh?
Pretty much all jurisdictions have laws on their books dealing with stalking, harassment, threats or threatening behaviour.
In simple terms because I really don't know the legal term "planning a crime"
Here can be arrested LEAVING the country if they suspect you intend to join up with bad people or commit a crime overseas
There is a difference between conspiracy to commit (which is planning with other people) and planning a crime (having the maps, diagrams, weapons, burglar tools, etc in you possession). Those two involve criminal acts. There is yet another difference between planning with intent and planning in theory (say, for the plot of a novel or movie script), but neither of those is indictable.
There is also a difference between using the image of a real person, taken without her consent (that's a crime), to fantasize, and fantasizing from memory (which isn't).
The differences of degree here all have a sharp line of demarcation: thought / act.
Your fantasies about the death of rich Uncle Egbert are nasty, but not criminal. Your ideas on how to facilitate the death of Uncle Egbert are bad, but not criminal. Your detailed plan to knock off Uncle Egbert are evil, but not criminal. Your buying the poison and scoping out where Uncle Egbert keeps his vitamins is criminal, even though you have not yet introduced the poison into the vitamin bottle. Doing that is criminal, even if Uncle Egbert never takes the poisoned capsule.
Then there is no crime.
Then there IS a crime.
Again, then there is an action - beginning a crime.
So no action = no crime.
I think the laws should be about harm.
Somebody else suggested that the action could/would probably not be prosecuted.
That's a ridiculously bad example. Of course it would be noticed.
And pretty much all jurisdictions have polititians who rely on fearmongering - so obviously fearmongering in and of itself is not a crime.
You misunerstood my statement and I clarified it.
How could they cover it up if they didn't know about it?
As somebody else pointed out, there certainly are exceptions. For example, there is a point at which "peeping" is a crime and a point at which it isn't.
Yeah, and we draw a line somewhere. Sometimes the line is not so clearly delineated, and so it becomes a matter for careful examination and consideration. Why is this such a problem for you?
Edit: Or, I suppose, the line may be clearly drawn, but perhaps the instance of transgression is not so clear. Either way...
Last edited:
It's not a problem for me. It's what I've been saying all along. Others seem to be suggesting that it's all cut and dried and the line is carved in stone. I agree with you that it isn't.
Noone here is saying anything of the sort. I think everyone concedes that certain instances require a more careful consideration, but that's kinda beside the point...
It's this:
that people seem to have a problem with. I do too.
Then we all agree. Good.
See edit above.Then we all agree. Good.
"Assault" is a fairly broad term but in my understanding it generally involves a perceived threat of some kind. My question is: if nothing is perceived, where is the threat and where is the assault?
- Status