Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibledemiu5
humans, lol
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium Flag
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #24415022 - 06/18/17 12:32 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
You keep saying that it is about intent, and you're completely wrong about that.  She wasn't convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter.  She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  In other words, her conduct negligently caused the death of a human being.

Having said the above, he intended to kill himself.  How does she become negligently liable for causing him to do something that he INTENDED to do?  By that logic, people all over the country are guilty of invol because they broke up with someone who later killed him/herself.

It's a ridiculous verdict that will hopefully be overturned on appeal.








Hurrah for LOGIC!!!


--------------------
channel your inner Larry David

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekrypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: demiu5]
    #24415058 - 06/18/17 12:52 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
You keep saying that it is about intent, and you're completely wrong about that.  She wasn't convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter.  She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  In other words, her conduct negligently caused the death of a human being.

Having said the above, he intended to kill himself.  How does she become negligently liable for causing him to do something that he INTENDED to do?  By that logic, people all over the country are guilty of invol because they broke up with someone who later killed him/herself.

It's a ridiculous verdict that will hopefully be overturned on appeal.




You obviously do not have to intend to kill someone to commit manslaughter though regardless of the method. If you intended their death then you'd have committed murder. Manslaughter relies on intentional negligence which directly results in someones death. It's no different than being convicted of manslaughter because you hit someone while texting and driving. The driver had no intention of killing them, that's why it's manslaughter and not murder, but their negligence which resulted in that death was intentional, they did not accidentally text and drive. If the driver hit someone because they had a seizure however they would be unlikely convicted of manslaughter if it could not be shown they had either caused the seizure or they at least had knowledge they were at risk of having one before hand.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: krypto2000]
    #24415069 - 06/18/17 12:56 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

krypto2000 said:
intentional negligence




This is an oxymoron.  Intentional manslaughter is called "voluntary manslaughter."  Negligent manslaughter is called "involuntary manslaughter."  She was convicted of the latter, so her intent was 100% irrelevant to that conviction.

Your argument may make sense to you, but from a legal standpoint, it's gibberish.  The closest your argument comes to a legal argument is the doctrine of specific intent/general intent.  Neither matter here because she was convicted of invol.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledemiu5
humans, lol
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium Flag
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: krypto2000]
    #24415079 - 06/18/17 01:01 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

krypto2000 said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
You keep saying that it is about intent, and you're completely wrong about that.  She wasn't convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter.  She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  In other words, her conduct negligently caused the death of a human being.

Having said the above, he intended to kill himself.  How does she become negligently liable for causing him to do something that he INTENDED to do?  By that logic, people all over the country are guilty of invol because they broke up with someone who later killed him/herself.

It's a ridiculous verdict that will hopefully be overturned on appeal.




You obviously do not have to intend to kill someone to commit manslaughter though regardless of the method. If you intended their death then you'd have committed murder. Manslaughter relies on intentional negligence which directly results in someones death. It's no different than being convicted of manslaughter because you hit someone while texting and driving. The driver had no intention of killing them, that's why it's manslaughter and not murder, but their negligence which resulted in that death was intentional, they did not accidentally text and drive. If the driver hit someone because they had a seizure however they would be unlikely convicted of manslaughter if it could not be shown they had either caused the seizure or they at least had knowledge they were at risk of having one before hand.






intending someone's death =/= murder.  directly causing someone's death = murder, as often does aiding/abetting a murder (providing materials, transporting someone to commit the murder, etc...)


--------------------
channel your inner Larry David

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekrypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: demiu5]
    #24415322 - 06/18/17 02:52 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

krypto2000 said:
intentional negligence




This is an oxymoron.  Intentional manslaughter is called "voluntary manslaughter."  Negligent manslaughter is called "involuntary manslaughter."  She was convicted of the latter, so her intent was 100% irrelevant to that conviction.

Your argument may make sense to you, but from a legal standpoint, it's gibberish.  The closest your argument comes to a legal argument is the doctrine of specific intent/general intent.  Neither matter here because she was convicted of invol.





I'm more familiar with involuntary manslaughter being manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter being 3rd degree murder, maybe they are not the terms commonly used or in your jurisdiction, maybe they're not even the correct terms in mine, but what you label them doesn't change what I was conveying. If you go by how wikipedia outlines the various types of manslaughter they all rely on some kind of intent though:

Quote:

Involuntary manslaughter... is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime.

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide...

To constitute [criminal negligence], there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious, and recklessness being of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission),


Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind"[1][2][3]) is the mental element of 1) intention to commit a crime or 2) knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed.









So of the two categories of involuntary manslaughter (I assume we both agree voluntary requires an intent) one still specifically mentions intent. The other, lets call it 'negligent manslaughter' does not mention intent specifically, but if you read the definition it is explicitly caused by a lack of intent which resulted in the crime occuring.

If a fireman had no intention to do his job and put out fires which resulted in a house burning down then he could be charged with criminal negligence. He did not possess intent of any kind, but you cannot argue that intent has no baring on the case, the lack of intent would be the very reason he is charged at all. To say that such a crime doesn't rely on intent is akin to saying that measuring your net worth does not require numbers because you're bankrupt.


Quote:

demiu5 said:
intending someone's death =/= murder.  directly causing someone's death = murder, as often does aiding/abetting a murder (providing materials, transporting someone to commit the murder, etc...)




Of course, I never said otherwise.

Edited by krypto2000 (06/18/17 03:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenooneman
Male

Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,683
Loc: Utah
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #24415366 - 06/18/17 03:08 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Convincing someone to commit a crime is a crime. Convincing someone to kill someone else is murder. Convincing someone to kill themselves is also murder.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: krypto2000] * 2
    #24415382 - 06/18/17 03:13 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

You're so confused that I don't know if I can even help you understand.

Involuntary manslaughter requires no intent to cause a death.  Constructive manslaughter is a whole other ball of wax that has nothing to do with this conversation.

To break it down as simply as I can, crimes have a mental state element, called the "mens rea."  There are four basic levels of mens rea:

1. Intent
2. Knowing
3. Recklessness
4. Negligent.

Intent means the person intended the conduct or the result.  Specific intent is when the defendant intends the result.  General intent is when the defendant intends the conduct leading to the result.

Knowing means the person acted with the knowledge that the result would likely occur. 

Recklessness means that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the result would occur.

Negligent means that the person breached a duty of care in a way that a reasonable person would not have.  For criminal negligence, it's a bit higher than that, technically a gross negligence standard, but it still comes nowhere near intent.

So, when  you talk about intent, you're talking about a level of mens rea on the opposite end of the spectrum from that required for involuntary manslaughter.  Technically, murder is a specific intent crime, meaning that one has to intend that the victim died.  Felony murder is a bit different in that it requires no intent that anyone dies.  They share the name "murder", but they are completely different crimes.

Voluntary manslaughter is really murder with some mitigating circumstances such as crimes of passion or depraved heart, etc.

Here, this was involuntary manslaughter.  If you hit someone with your car because you were driving too fast, that's involuntary manslaughter.  You didn't intend to kill anyone or even harm anyone.  You were negligent, and someone died...invol. 

That's what she was convicted of.  In other words, her intent didn't come into play.  If intent to cause death had been proven, it would have been 1d murder. 

Now, looking at the case, isn't it clear that she intended for him to die?  If so, why wasn't it 1d murder?  The answer is that the judge knew that this case was not really a homicide, but that her conduct was reprehensible...so he punished her with invol, the lowest level of homicide available to him.

He basically did what he wanted to do without regard for the actual law.  She intended him to die.  She didn't cause him to die, however.  She should have been acquitted.  Instead, the judge compromised and convicted her of a crime which doesn't fit the facts at all.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: nooneman]
    #24415390 - 06/18/17 03:15 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

nooneman said:
Convincing someone to commit a crime is a crime. Convincing someone to kill someone else is murder. Convincing someone to kill themselves is also murder.



This is touching on my point.  Your argument assumes that suicide is murder.  Is it?  Is there malice aforethought?  If not, suicide can't be murder. 

If suicide isn't murder, how can convincing someone to commit suicide be murder?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenooneman
Male

Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,683
Loc: Utah
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: Enlil]
    #24415414 - 06/18/17 03:22 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

It depends, I suppose, upon the nature of the suicide, and the intent of the person assisting it. If the suicide is clearly voluntary such as at the end of a terminal illness, and the person assisting it doesn't do so with malicious intent, then certainly not. On the other hand, if the intent is clearly malicious, and the person otherwise would have lived a long and healthy life...

You'd have to take into account the total facts of the case.

As I'm sure you know, there are several states that have laws allowing and regulating assisted suicide. In such states, you might just follow the letter of the law: if the person assisted within the bounds of the law then it is not murder.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: nooneman]
    #24415427 - 06/18/17 03:26 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

The question is whether or not suicide is murder.  Here's another way to look at it.  Attempted murder is a crime.  Have you ever heard of anyone charged with attempted murder for trying to kill him/herself?

If not, doesn't that tend to support my argument that suicide isn't murder?

If suicide isn't murder, aiding and abetting a suicide shouldn't be murder, either.  Certainly talking someone through it shouldn't be.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenooneman
Male

Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,683
Loc: Utah
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: Enlil]
    #24415522 - 06/18/17 03:52 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Just because no one that I know of has been charged with attempted murder for attempting suicide that does not necessarily mean suicide is universally not the same as murder.

I think that there are some situations where it is murder, although these would be of course (hopefully) a minority of all suicides. I agree that there are lots of cases in which suicide is not murder, but I think there are also situations in which it is murder.

If a person out of malicious intent tries to and succeeds in killing someone by convincing them to kill themselves, I believe this is murder. You might argue that this is not truly suicide, but actually just plain old murder using the victim as the weapon against himself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: nooneman]
    #24415685 - 06/18/17 05:26 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

That wholly disregards the "victim's" autonomy.  I guess if you don't believe in individual freedom, it's murder, sure.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,633
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 18 hours, 26 minutes
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: Enlil]
    #24416187 - 06/18/17 08:44 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
The question is whether or not suicide is murder.  Here's another way to look at it.  Attempted murder is a crime.  Have you ever heard of anyone charged with attempted murder for trying to kill him/herself?

If not, doesn't that tend to support my argument that suicide isn't murder?

If suicide isn't murder, aiding and abetting a suicide shouldn't be murder, either.  Certainly talking someone through it shouldn't be.




Im confused...the reason why murder (isn't considered suicide) is due that the act involves two parties? Meaning suicide is a solo event (via free will) that only takes the life of the person doing it. While murder is another person perpetrating the event that results in death?


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Edited by SirTripAlot (06/18/17 08:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #24416207 - 06/18/17 08:51 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought.  Suicide lacks malice imo. 

How can there be malice when the"victim" consents?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekrypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: Enlil]
    #24416300 - 06/18/17 09:35 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
You're so confused that I don't know if I can even help you understand.

Involuntary manslaughter requires no intent to cause a death.  Constructive manslaughter is a whole other ball of wax that has nothing to do with this conversation.

To break it down as simply as I can, crimes have a mental state element, called the "mens rea."  There are four basic levels of mens rea:

1. Intent
2. Knowing
3. Recklessness
4. Negligent.

Intent means the person intended the conduct or the result.  Specific intent is when the defendant intends the result.  General intent is when the defendant intends the conduct leading to the result.

Knowing means the person acted with the knowledge that the result would likely occur. 

Recklessness means that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the result would occur.

Negligent means that the person breached a duty of care in a way that a reasonable person would not have.  For criminal negligence, it's a bit higher than that, technically a gross negligence standard, but it still comes nowhere near intent.

So, when  you talk about intent, you're talking about a level of mens rea on the opposite end of the spectrum from that required for involuntary manslaughter.  Technically, murder is a specific intent crime, meaning that one has to intend that the victim died.  Felony murder is a bit different in that it requires no intent that anyone dies.  They share the name "murder", but they are completely different crimes.

Voluntary manslaughter is really murder with some mitigating circumstances such as crimes of passion or depraved heart, etc.

Here, this was involuntary manslaughter.  If you hit someone with your car because you were driving too fast, that's involuntary manslaughter.  You didn't intend to kill anyone or even harm anyone.  You were negligent, and someone died...invol. 

That's what she was convicted of.  In other words, her intent didn't come into play.  If intent to cause death had been proven, it would have been 1d murder. 

Now, looking at the case, isn't it clear that she intended for him to die?  If so, why wasn't it 1d murder?  The answer is that the judge knew that this case was not really a homicide, but that her conduct was reprehensible...so he punished her with invol, the lowest level of homicide available to him.

He basically did what he wanted to do without regard for the actual law.  She intended him to die.  She didn't cause him to die, however.  She should have been acquitted.  Instead, the judge compromised and convicted her of a crime which doesn't fit the facts at all.




What I was trying to convey with my usage of the word intent was essentially mens rea, and by outcome actus reus. I even referenced mens rea specifically and explained how my usage of intent related in the very post you have replied to.

I understand you were confused because intent has a specific legal definition that you're obviously more accustomed with being a lawyer where as I'm using it more colloquially, but what I conveyed was still clear. So I'm not sure if you just became side tracked over the terminology or if it was deliberate, but at this point all you've done to debate my position is to attack my character in an attempt at devaluing it.

Quote:

She didn't cause him to die, however.




That's not a fact at all though, that's probably the core question at the very heart of this thread and court decision. Did she cause him to die? Where do you draw the lines between personal responsibility and responsibility for others? No one would seriously argue either are all or nothing thus it's open for interpretation, that's why trials exist. This happens to be an area that is open for more interpretation than others since it relates so closely to the controversial topic of free speech.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: krypto2000]
    #24416311 - 06/18/17 09:43 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Attack your character, LOL.  If that's what you think that post was, I guess there is no point discussing further.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekrypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: Enlil]
    #24416364 - 06/18/17 10:14 PM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Attack your character, LOL.  If that's what you think that post was, I guess there is no point discussing further.





Haha, and you just did it again. These are classic ad hominem attacks Enlil. Maybe you're getting confused and thinking of 'attack' in the legal sense :rofl:.

Quote:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]




First you argue semantics of my usage of the word intent instead of debating the position I put forth using the word, now you dismiss my position all together because I called you out on doing so, or as you say, "think that."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: krypto2000]
    #24416917 - 06/19/17 05:21 AM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Telling you that you don't understand the concept isn't the same as a character attack.  Not understanding is something every human does.  None of us understand until we do.  I'm not sure why you think that somehow makes your character less worthy.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegregorio
Too Damn Old
Male


Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 2,837
Loc: Classified
Last seen: 13 days, 11 hours
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: Cinnamon]
    #24431059 - 06/24/17 08:06 AM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Cinnamon said:
I just don't agree we should put ANY boundaries on speech,




What about shouting " Fire " in a crowded theater? Yelling fire is not the problem, the problem is how crowded the theater is. That speech is very likely to cause needless harm.

Certain speech will get you arrested for assault and for good reason.

Where I work at you even mention the word "union", say goodbye to my job.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Protected Speech or not? [Re: gregorio]
    #24431065 - 06/24/17 08:07 AM (6 years, 9 months ago)

Speech alone is never an assault.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Recent Gore speech
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Edame 3,925 66 08/11/03 09:18 PM
by pattern
* Series on Protecting Your Privacy Online Lana 3,435 2 12/09/02 09:01 AM
by isam
* John Kerry's Speech
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Zahid 5,099 61 07/31/04 04:53 PM
by Ancalagon
* Bush's speech to the UN LordMorham 1,573 12 09/17/02 09:31 AM
by MortMtroN
* Wouldn't we all like to see THIS Bush speech? Phred 1,095 9 09/15/04 03:28 AM
by Zahid
* Best Bush Speech Analysis I've Seen Ancalagon 580 1 09/04/04 01:18 PM
by JesusChrist
* Usama bin Ladin's speech shanti 570 5 11/03/04 02:50 PM
by zahudulallah
* War Launched to Protect the Zionist entity - Bush Adviser Zahid 1,235 16 09/25/04 08:14 AM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,460 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.