OP
ßöмßäяðîëя
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #148,982
    Nah, the actual question was, where the defendant foresees the prohibited result as a virtually certain result of their actions, the jury can conclude that the defendant intended the result.

    I am arguing as the prosecution and in favour of the statement.
    See, the problem is, what defines "virtually certain"? If the guy throws a lit cigarette out of a car and burns down a city block, I am "virtually certain" he did not mean that. Although, what if he sets a woman on fire or a trash bin? That probably is more arguable, but it's all speculation as to the forethought of his actions.

    Ohhh yea, I see you don't shave that thing, nice. All the boys must like it.
     

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
    ßöмßäяðîëя;2742874 said:
    See, the problem is, what defines "virtually certain"? If the guy throws a lit cigarette out of a car and burns down a city block, I am "virtually certain" he did not mean that. Although, what if he sets a woman on fire or a trash bin? That probably is more arguable, but it's all speculation as to the forethought of his actions.
    Over here, these things are all about what is reasonable, and you then have to look back at old cases to find out what is considered reasonable in whatever circumstances.

    It's certainly pretty debatable where the line should be drawn in a lot of cases.
     
    OP
    ßöмßäяðîëя
    Apr 12, 2004
    77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #148,984
    Over here, these things are all about what is reasonable, and you then have to look back at old cases to find out what is considered reasonable in whatever circumstances.

    It's certainly pretty debatable where the line should be drawn in a lot of cases.
    Well of course, citing case law is one of the best and most efficient ways to argue a case. I just think it's crazy that is a point of argument.

    It's like arguing what is and isn't free speech here. ("I'll fuck your mom" is legal, while "FIRE!" or causing panic is not.)

    The slope is slippery and steep.

    Do you guys have "causation"?
     

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
    ßöмßäяðîëя;2742879 said:
    Well of course, citing case law is one of the best and most efficient ways to argue a case. I just think it's crazy that is a point of argument.

    It's like arguing what is and isn't free speech here. ("I'll fuck your mom" is legal, while "FIRE!" or causing panic is not.)

    The slope is slippery and steep.
    Aye.

    Breach of the Peace is the worst one here for the lack of clear definition.

    Anything that is deemed to be causing or has the potential to cause alarm to members of the general public is Breach of the Peace.

    It's used as a catch-all thing if nothing else fits, but the police don't much like what someone's up to.

    ßöмßäяðîëя;2742879 said:
    Do you guys have "causation"?
    Yup.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 216)