What Are You Doing Right Now? (217 Viewers)

OP
ßöмßäяðîëя

ßöмßäяðîëя

The Krazyman
Thread Starter #148,981
Apr 12, 2004
77,164
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #148,981
    Luca said:
    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.
    Click to expand...
    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.

    ChristinaLovesDusan said:
    :lol:

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

    Buy on AliExpress.com
    Red

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    #148,982
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,023
    #148,982
    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.
    Click to expand...
    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

    ßöмßäяðîëя

    The Krazyman
    Thread Starter #148,983
    Apr 12, 2004
    77,164
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #148,983
    Red said:
    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.
    Click to expand...
    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

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    #148,984
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,023
    #148,984
    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.
    Click to expand...
    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"?
    Click to expand...
    Yup.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 204)