quote: Rob apparently believes that if someone is gathering material to attack or kill someone, it isn't illegal because "it's just thought."
No, that's stage three, which I pretty much pointed out WOULD often be illegal (depending upon the act).
Given that you repeatedly miss this, one can only conclude that you:
a) Haven't been reading, b) Have read, but have poor comprehensive skills, or c) Have read and comprehended, but continue to blow shite for reasons of deception.
quote:I believe that if you're in the planning stage of something illegal (even if you're considering whether its possible to commit and/or get away with a crime), you're comitting an illegal act.
Well, fortunately you're not running the thought police, because by that criteria you would have to lock up EVERY HUMAN BEING. Especially everybody who'd ever played one of those novelty board games that ask ethical questions, or books like "The Book of Questions" which ASK you to actively consider such things as moral dilemmas.
Big Brother Lives, and he is thee.
[ April 24, 2002, 16:31: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, but Rob, if you've got no intention to commit an illegal act (i.e., playing a morality game), then what are you doing illegal? Oh, nothing. Right.
On the other hand, if you're planning escape routes from a bank ... well, that's probably pretty illegal, wouldn't you agree? You're planning on the comission of a felony -- that IS illegal.
I'm sorry you don't see the difference. Then again, I don't know why I'm surprised. You're an apologist for the use of nukes in combat, and now for this. If the Bush Administration pushes for torture, I'm sure you'll apologize for that too.
Maybe we should throw Al-Queda in a cell with Rob AND Omega. I bet it'd be five minutes before they're cracking their heads into the brick wall to escape the stupidity.
posted
I see, the present administration discussing the denial of due process is like Snay playing a board game.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:if you've got no intention to commit an illegal act (i.e., playing a morality game), then what are you doing illegal? Oh, nothing. Right.
quote:I believe that if you're in the planning stage of something illegal (even if you're considering whether its possible to commit and/or get away with a crime), you're comitting an illegal act.
These two statements are in conflict. Which are you going to choose to go with today?
Is is possible, in fact easy, to consider whether its possible to commit a crime without having any intention of committing it. It is also possible to have intent, but never get beyond the considering phase before changing one's mind, without committing a single illegal act.
Hm. Do the Snayvian Thought Police believe that you commit a crime if you consider committing a crime that is impossible? For instance, I believe that if the people who abused Julie (to use a personal example you're so fond of) were alive today, I would consider (and more) their deaths at my hand.
Or how about this: I once, in concert with others and in some detail, considered an assault on a person we knew to be abusing his girlfriend. Circumstances (his arrest, her departure) caused the abortion of the plan while it was still in the consideration stage. Are we criminals?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
'justifiable homicide' has always been an interesting term, too me anyway.... Which is usually followed far too closely by, 'excessive force'.....
If you had been protecting her, and stabbed the guy, and he died, well, possible justifiable homicide.... stabbing him 19 times might me considered excessive force....
The jury would need the full circumstances and the right wind direction....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Look, I'm sorry that you don't know the difference between an "off-hand" thought and a serious, "gee, I'm considering doing this illegal act" thought.
Yes, Robert, you're guilty of conspiracy to commit assault. I'm sure this is a surprise to you, but I don't see why it would be. You apparently were very serious in assaulting this person, which would be a crime, and I doubt you were waiting to go after him when he was in the middle of beating up his girl. Planning a crime is indeed a crime, but it's got one benefit: it's usually hard to tell you're thinking about it, so since you were lucky enough not to go through with it, you got off scott free. You can bet if the cops got wind of it and found you holding a baseball bat and lying in wait, you'd've spent a night in jail and gotten to ride in a police car with some metal bracelets.
As anyone with half an ounce of common sense is also aware (having a college degree does not equal having an ounce of common sense), killing a dead person is impossible. Feelings of rage aren't illegal, Rob, unless you act on them. Or start making plans to commit crimes based on them. If the cops break down your door and find you're building a pipe bomb, do you really think screaming "thought police!" will save you?
I'm sorry you can't see the difference. I'm sorry you can't see that for all account the Bush Administration is seriously considering this as a course of action. I know, if they do decide to do this, that Omega will ignore it and go ranting about Bill Clinton getting a blowjob. I'm sure you'll keep posting in the flameboard, and get bashed by Lee the next time you bring up your girlfriend. You're wrong, Rob. You're stretching with your examples. You're yelling "thought police" ... I wonder if that's what you'd say if the USSS busted a guy with a sniper-rifle waiting in ambush for President Bush. "The damn thought police!"
Get some common sense, Rob. Realize that you're lucky you're not a convicted criminal -- because if you'd attacked that guy, there's a good possibility you would be. One wonders why you didn't contact the police. One wonders why you're not aware that viligante justice is illegal.
More then anything else, stop posting these inane examples. Get back on topic, or keep your promise from the other thread and go away.
Here's an angle that might mean we don't have to trudge through any more demi-moral pissing contests where neither side has even the slightest chance of comprehending the other:
As previously established, the administration is considering this. That means that now is the time that we let the administration know how we feel about it. Therefore, we should let our representatives know how we feel about this, and our representatives will do whatever they damn well please because that's the way they've always done it, but at least they'll know how we feel about it.
I happen to think that most people would agree that prosecuting and punishing people without any evidence of their crimes is wrong and is therefore not something we should ever do, but hey what is that old axiom about everyone having opinions? I also happen think that most people would like to see those who have comitted crimes be punished for their foul deeds. That, at least, I think we could all agree on, eh?
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
This entire debate is based on a completely illogical comparison. When a person simply thinks about commiting a crime, you can't hold them accountable. It's just a thought. But, when a government officially considers something, it's a completely different matter. For you, as an individual, to think about a crime, the thought need merely cross your mind. But, for a government to consider a crime, not only must the idea cross someone's mind, but they have to decide it's a valid idea to consider; then they have to tell it to other people who also have to decide that it's a valid idea to consider. This is a much more serious "consideration" of the crime than my simply thinking "Y'know, I kinda think I'd like to punch these people in the face. But, nah...".
[ April 24, 2002, 21:04: Message edited by: TSN ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
War Plan Red, War Plan Black, War Plan Orange.
These were three plans drawn up by the US between the late 1890's and the early 1930's.
They were strategic scenarios and options , plans for waging war, being 'considered' if the US had felt the need to defend its Pacific interests against The UK (Red), Germany (Black), and Japan (Orange).
Can you tell me when US forces last engaged the British fleet in the Pacific? Thought not.
Consideration and planning, even detailed strategic planning on the governmental level, does not necessarily equal intent to carry out.
quote:If the cops break down your door and find you're building a pipe bomb, do you really think screaming "thought police!" will save you?
No, screaming "no warrant" will, though. Evidence seized without a proper search warrant would be inadmissable.
Bad wannabe cop. No donut.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
