Seaoat asked me a question the other day. He asked "if an insane defendant has no intent to commit a crime, is he guilty of the crime?"

2seaoat wrote:Hyperloop / circle logic


Get rid of Government regulation, and stop Government from gathering information.

+

Government was negligent in protecting our Ambassador and overthrowing Libya's Mr. K.........

equals = bad ideas fail.

Nothing circular about that logic, but heck.......nothing wrong with making bad arguments.....keeps this place fun.

Assign this to me. It was a bad idea to intervene in libya... the bad ideas extend from there. The decisions were either naive or incompetent... you tell us mr. knowitall. Look at egypt... how's that going? Obama called for mubarak to step down for the muslim brotherhood... happy with how that's going? I think your analysis for our foreign policy sucks.

Assign this to me. It was a bad idea to intervene in libya... the bad ideas extend from there. The decisions were either naive or incompetent... you tell us mr. knowitall. Look at egypt... how's that going? Obama called for mubarak to step down for the muslim brotherhood... happy with how that's going? I think your analysis for our foreign policy sucks.



Of course you do. You think what is happening in Egypt is a bad thing for America. You think we have no control. You think Libya was a failure.....sell that to the families who had loved ones scattered over Scotland.....but heck......government needs to scale down, and get out of the way, quit listening, quit spending money protecting America.....my analysis sucks.....yessireee.

The 5 yr. old analogy certainly sucked.

2seaoat wrote:Assign this to me. It was a bad idea to intervene in libya... the bad ideas extend from there. The decisions were either naive or incompetent... you tell us mr. knowitall. Look at egypt... how's that going? Obama called for mubarak to step down for the muslim brotherhood... happy with how that's going? I think your analysis for our foreign policy sucks.



Of course you do. You think what is happening in Egypt is a bad thing for America. You think we have no control. You think Libya was a failure.....sell that to the families who had loved ones scattered over Scotland.....but heck......government needs to scale down, and get out of the way, quit listening, quit spending money protecting America.....my analysis sucks.....yessireee.

Where have I ever said what's happening in egypt is a bad thing for america? I'm not going to keep doing this.

2seaoat wrote:Nothing has been said about your newest favorite bad guy......the discussion was about the legal capacity for specific intent crimes, and in what situations where the intent might be challenged.  However, it is always enjoyable discussing concepts where the world simply cannot be a globe and remains flat......why.....well because, or we do not need no stinking concepts....we got law.....yessireee.  Maybe if enough people yell the world is flat.....it will be......you know it is an apple and oranges comparison.

Seaoat,  every time you say something I disagree with,  I could easily do just as you so often do.  I could repeatedly reply that people like you think the world is flat.  Or that people like you are uninformed.  And I could think how clever it is of me to tell you that.
But that would be a very juvenile thing to say.  About like what that 5 year old would say.  So being that I'm 64 years old I'm not inclined to do that.

The 5 yr. old analogy certainly sucked.


Thank you. I figured it confused you.

But that would be a very juvenile thing to say. About like what that 5 year old would say. So being that I'm 64 years old I'm not inclined to do that.

No, it is easier to assign a position to someone and then confuse a legal concept.......that is certainly something a 64 year old has the CAPACITY to do.

2seaoat wrote:

No, it is easier to assign a position to someone and then confuse a legal concept.  

Not everyone who has a different opinion from yours has it because he or she is "confused".  
That happens only because you've set yourself up as being the world's foremost expert on law and attempt to talk down to all of us.
To use your jukebox analogy,  if you prefer Rockola over Wurltizer,  it's not because you're ignorant or ill-informed or confused or believe the world is flat.  It's because you have a different opinion.  
And if I don't want to house and give free medical care to Ariel Castro for the rest of his life,  when nobody is giving me any free housing or medical care,  and you do want to do that,  then it's because you and I have a difference of opinion.  Not because of "confusion" or belief in flat earth or we didn't go to the moon or that the sun sets in the east. And it doesn't have anything to do with executing a 5-year old no matter how many times you repeat that in this thread. lol

Yeah what Bob said...all but that going to the moon part....only confused ignorant nincompoops believe that.

And if I don't want to house and give free medical care to Ariel Castro for the rest of his life, when nobody is giving me any free housing or medical care, and you do want to do that,

There you go again.....acting like a 64 year old.....where did I post that I wanted Ariel Castro to be housed and given free medical care? I simply pointed out that the death sentence is more expensive and that lack of capacity can impact criminal intent.

Not because of "confusion" or belief in flat earth or we didn't go to the moon or that the sun sets in the east. And it doesn't have anything to do with executing a 5-year old no matter how many times you repeat that in this thread. lol

Dreams is the leader on butchering or not understanding legal concepts, and you are a distant second. Correction rarely does the trick as you believe you can create your own definitions or in Dreams case she just continually gets it wrong......argues and then when she is corrected states just the opposite of what she originally said.....you just create new stuff in Bobland......and then argue it is the same as the legal concepts.......so the flat earth analogy is correct, and it is not a difference of opinion which you fail again to comprehend, it is a difference between understanding a legal concept and not understanding. I am comfortable with my flat earth comparison. I am also comfortable when somebody is clueless about the definitions, concepts, and concise statutes in our legal system, and it has nothing to do with opinions. It has everything to do with understanding or not understanding those things.

Yeah what Bob said...all but that going to the moon part....only confused ignorant nincompoops believe that.


Going to the moon or not going to the moon is not a definitional or conceptual problem. It is a factual determination. If a person was talking about going to the moon and showing photos of Jupiter, or showing instead of the moon rover, a photo of the titanic, then you would have conceptual problems and not opinion differences over the facts.

Far too often Jupiter and the titanic enter a legal discussion on this forum. Folks like Boards, Margin, and Sal are able to understand higher level concepts. Others have difficulty. Some just pretend. When talking about whether the titanic was on the moon to prove the moon was landed on first needs to separate mistaken concepts from the facts. If I am arrogant because I think a person is mistaken discussing Jupiter when talking about a moon landing.......guilty as charged.

Bob wrote:

2seaoat wrote:

No, it is easier to assign a position to someone and then confuse a legal concept.  

Not everyone who has a different opinion from yours has it because he or she is "confused".  
That happens only because you've set yourself up as being the world's foremost expert on law and attempt to talk down to all of us.
To use your jukebox analogy,  if you prefer Rockola over Wurltizer,  it's not because you're ignorant or ill-informed or confused or believe the world is flat.  It's because you have a different opinion.  
And if I don't want to house and give free medical care to Ariel Castro for the rest of his life,  when nobody is giving me any free housing or medical care,  and you do want to do that,  then it's because you and I have a difference of opinion.  Not because of "confusion" or belief in flat earth or we didn't go to the moon or that the sun sets in the east.  And it doesn't have anything to do with executing a 5-year old no matter how many times you repeat that in this thread.  lol

 

My two cents...I have heard the price to house an inmate for life is cheaper than death row, considering all the state financed appeals. I would prefer instant death considering he agreed to the guilty plea. You can not execute a person with diminished mental capacity and that is what he was setting up in his statement. So, house him for life and hopefully he will not live long inside the prison walls.

Joanimaroni wrote:I have heard the price to house an inmate for life is cheaper than death row.

I've heard that too and I imagine it is the truth. It's just another good example of the utter idiocracy of the society we're living in.

And it's also why I've decided that if I find someone inside my home trying to do me harm and I'm lucky enough to apprehend him at gunpoint, I'm going to go ahead and execute him myself and lie about it to the authorities.

2seaoat wrote:And if I don't want to house and give free medical care to Ariel Castro for the rest of his life,  when nobody is giving me any free housing or medical care,  and you do want to do that,

There you go again.....acting like a 64 year old.....where did I post that I wanted Ariel Castro to be housed and given free medical care?   I simply pointed out that the death sentence is more expensive and that lack of capacity can impact criminal intent.

Not because of "confusion" or belief in flat earth or we didn't go to the moon or that the sun sets in the east. And it doesn't have anything to do with executing a 5-year old no matter how many times you repeat that in this thread. lol

Dreams is the leader on butchering or not understanding legal concepts, and you are a distant second.  Correction rarely does the trick as you believe you can create your own definitions or in Dreams case she just continually gets it wrong......argues and then when she is corrected states just the opposite of what she originally said.....you just create new stuff in Bobland......and then argue it is the same as the legal concepts.......so the flat earth analogy is correct, and it is not a difference of opinion which you fail again to comprehend, it is a difference between understanding a legal concept and not understanding.   I am comfortable with my flat earth comparison.  I am also comfortable when somebody is clueless about the definitions, concepts, and concise statutes in our legal system, and it has nothing to do with opinions.  It has everything to do with understanding or not understanding those things.

"and it has nothing to do with opinions."

Now that's the mama of dumb statements! You make a ridiculous analogy of a 5 yr. old to an insanity defense than have the audacity to keep on defending it to the point of absurdity. You have no insight into your flawed thinking.

Now that's the mama of dumb statements! You make a ridiculous analogy of a 5 yr. old to an insanity defense than have the audacity to keep on defending it to the point of absurdity. You have no insight into your flawed thinking.


I would expect your comprehension to come to that conclusion.......nothing new. Where I am defending anything. I simply understand.

2seaoat wrote:And if I don't want to house and give free medical care to Ariel Castro for the rest of his life,  when nobody is giving me any free housing or medical care,  and you do want to do that,

There you go again.....acting like a 64 year old.....where did I post that I wanted Ariel Castro to be housed and given free medical care?   I simply pointed out that the death sentence is more expensive and that lack of capacity can impact criminal intent.

Not because of "confusion" or belief in flat earth or we didn't go to the moon or that the sun sets in the east. And it doesn't have anything to do with executing a 5-year old no matter how many times you repeat that in this thread. lol

Dreams is the leader on butchering or not understanding legal concepts, and you are a distant second.  Correction rarely does the trick as you believe you can create your own definitions or in Dreams case she just continually gets it wrong......argues and then when she is corrected states just the opposite of what she originally said.....you just create new stuff in Bobland......and then argue it is the same as the legal concepts.......so the flat earth analogy is correct, and it is not a difference of opinion which you fail again to comprehend, it is a difference between understanding a legal concept and not understanding.   I am comfortable with my flat earth comparison.  I am also comfortable when somebody is clueless about the definitions, concepts, and concise statutes in our legal system, and it has nothing to do with opinions.  It has everything to do with understanding or not understanding those things.

Perhaps your perceptional reality has difficulty discerning visual veracity and the world really is flat.

In reality we may all be cartoons living out our daily lives never realizing that someone or something is simply turning the pages of their comic book.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scSWQpGDcl8

By the way seaoat... How's that perceptional reality of being humane and civil by locking a wild animal in a cage with other wild animals going for you?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAqZb52sgpU

 

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUKMu7EXLiA