🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:11:08 GMT, Scott Weiser <weiser@dimensional.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 22:25:18 GMT, joelga@pebble.org (Joel Garry)
>wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you know the difference between criminal common law and traffic infractions?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, do you?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but from your postings, I don't believe you.
>>>
>>>How so?
>>
>>Because you said:
>>
>>------------------------  Begin Inclusion  -------------------------
>>
>>No, just for speeding and perhaps some other deliberate violations.
>>
>>>
>>>Why should the imcompetent not be held to the same standards?
>>
>>Because they are....incompetent....
>>
>>>  You
>>>probably agree with the judge that let the elderly person walk after
>>>running over pedestrians on the sidewalk.
>>
>>What do you mean by "walk?"   Nobody who kills another for whatever
>>reason just "walks," they usually pay a heavy, heavy
>>price...particularly those who had no intent to kill.
>>
>>It depends on the specific circumstances, but I'd certainly revoke
>>their license.
>>
>>>  After all, you can't blame
>>>someone that inadvertently kills, but if they deliberately park in a
>>>fire lane they should go straight to jail.
>>
>>Correct in part.  Whether someone who "inadvertently kills" is
>>culpable depends on the specific circumstances and their degree of
>>negligence, but someone who breaks the law *deliberately* and with
>>malice aforethought, deserves harsh punishment as a reminder that
>>society will not tolerate scofflaws.
>>
>>Deliberation and intent have always been factors in the punishment for
>>any crime.
>>
>>--------------------------  End Inclusion  --------------------------
>>
>>That first line there.  It implies that you don't know that speeding is
>>a traffic infraction that requires no intent, no malice aforthought.
>
>>Now perhaps you didn't mean to imply that deliberate goes with speeding,
>>but you've made it quite clear you are talking about "deliberate speeders,"
>>so any ambiguity in that first line is gone.  In other words, you are 
>>taking something that is not defined in the criminal code or criminal
>>common law, calling it a crime, and daring me to point that out.  So, no,
>>you don't appear to know the difference between criminal common law and
>>traffic infractions.
>
>Well if you'll notice, I was stating my opinion on what I think the
>law *should* be, not what it is.

What it should be needs to take into account what is, or you'll never get
there.  If you are throwing out centuries of careful deliberation, it
needs a pretty fine microscopic examination.

And you are mixing what should be and what is in the above quoted passage.

>
>Regards,
>
>Scott Weiser
>
>******
>"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
>friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
>******
>http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/
>
>Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser
>
>By the act of transmitting any commercial 
>e-mail or advertisment to this address, you are expressly 
>contracting with me in my professional capacity for a 
>consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly 
>agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such 
>consultation within 10 days of my report to the original 
>sending address.  You further expressly agree that all 
>actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely 
>to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have 
>sole jurisdiction.


-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest or 
Pebble In The Sky http://www.informationquest.com mailto:jgarry@nospameiq.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  "See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!