When morons breed...

[Architect]

Your legal position is of little relevance. Kindly show in what way this couple "willfully" did their first child harm.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, your position seems to be that because - in your view - there is no evidence of malice then the couple are not culpable. Is that a fair summary of your argument? Is there anything else which you would lik to add?

 

[DanishDynamite]

So, for the avoidance of doubt, your position seems to be that because - in your view - there is no evidence of malice then the couple are not culpable. Is that a fair summary of your argument? Is there anything else which you would lik to add?

Nope. That is my position, as far as I understand your legal mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Architect]

Nope. That is my position, as far as I understand your legal mumbo-jumbo.

So let's take that a step further then. You believe that there has to be malice before a crime is committed?

 

[DanishDynamite]

So let's take that a step further then. You believe that there has to be malice before a crime is committed?

I believe there has to be intent to harm in order for there to be a crime.

 

[Architect]

I believe there has to be intent to harm in order for there to be a crime.

So in the same vein - and I'd like you to think about this carefully, because it isn't just a reframing of the previous question - do you believe that there has to be malice for someone to be criminally responsible for their actions?

 

[DanishDynamite]

So in the same vein - and I'd like you to think about this carefully, because it isn't just a reframing of the previous question - do you believe that there has to be malice for someone to be criminally responsible for their actions?

So in the same vein - and I'd like you to think about this carefully, because it isn't just a reframing of the previous question - do you believe that the word "malice" is important for someone to be criminally responsible for their actions?

 

[Lonewulf]

Evidence?

OMG! CLAIMS FOR EVIDENCE!!11111 I R SCREWED NOWZORS!111

Look up vegan recipes if you're curious. If you're not, then the question was meaningless (except to fulfill some political and/or philosophical agenda of your own).

http://www.veganchef.com/

http://vegweb.com/

http://allrecipes.com/Recipes/Everyday-Cooking/Vegetarian/Main.aspx

http://members.allrecipes.com/community/recipe/PhotoGallery.aspx?recipeID=22145 <--- This looks pretty good...

http://www.vegan-food.net/

http://www.veganconnection.com/recipes/index.htm

Hmm, the above talks about lentil soup. I made a big ol' pot of lentil soup once, lasted me a week. Those things aren't hard to make.

http://www.randomgirl.com/recipes.html

http://www.greenpeople.org/healthfood.htm Vegan stores, by state.

http://www.vegetarian-restaurants.net/

I think that this is further evidence that JREF posting somehow inhibits one's ability to use a simple google check. Either that, or "skeptics" aren't really interested in finding out things for themselves.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think most would. But it isn't relevant as it was a home birth.

It is relevant, as you implied that it was probably better for the parents to have a home birth.

You also outright stated that the doctors would "shove bull down their throats". I can go back and quote you directly if you wish.

This directly contradicts your claim that most doctors would give legitimate advice.

 

[Alt+F4]

I believe there has to be intent to harm in order for there to be a crime.

Me too, and that's what the prosecution was trying to prove: that they intended to murder their child and used the vegan lifestyle as a ruse.

As to what evidence the prosecution had of intent, I don't know since the trial transcript doesn't seem to available online. The twelve jurors who found them guilty beyond a resonable doubt belived there was intent to murder. Since they heard all the evidence and I didn't, I'll side with them. Guilty as charged.

As for the mandatory sentence of life, this seems to be a change in the right direction. Baby killers usual get lighter sentences then those who kill an adult.

I'm my opinion, justice in this case was served.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It is relevant, as you implied that it was probably better for the parents to have a home birth.

You also outright stated that the doctors would "shove bull down their throats". I can go back and quote you directly if you wish.

This directly contradicts your claim that most doctors would give legitimate advice.

Yes, it was probably better for these people, who felt that "doctors" and other scum of the establishment were detrimental to the health of their baby.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, it was probably better for these people, who felt that "doctors" and other scum of the establishment were detrimental to the health of their baby.

And, considering your post, you seemed to have agreed with them that doctors would have been pushing "bull".

Which is why you come off as very foolish.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Me too, and that's what the prosecution was trying to prove: that they intended to murder their child and used the vegan lifestyle as a ruse.

As to what evidence the prosecution had of intent, I don't know since the trial transcript doesn't seem to available online. The twelve jurors who found them guilty beyond a resonable doubt belived there was intent to murder. Since they heard all the evidence and I didn't, I'll side with them. Guilty as charged.

As for the mandatory sentence of life, this seems to be a change in the right direction. Baby killers usual get lighter sentences then those who kill an adult.

I'm my opinion, justice in this case was served.

If the parents knowingly killed their own child, I could care less about their destiny.

If they inadvertently killed their baby because of their ignorance, they should be set free.

 

[DanishDynamite]

And, considering your post, you seemed to have agreed with them that doctors would have been pushing "bull".

They would have been pushing "bull" in the eyes of the poarents and the parents wouldn't need to face this "bull" if, as they did, had the birth at home.

Which is why you come off as very foolish.

No understood. Perhaps you meant "principle-minded".

 

[Architect]

So in the same vein - and I'd like you to think about this carefully, because it isn't just a reframing of the previous question - do you believe that the word "malice" is important for someone to be criminally responsible for their actions?

I have to warn you that I do have some legal knowledge, and that I know the actual answer to these questions.

But I'm just trying to get to your precise position, in order to expedite a meaningful response. Now, what's your answer?

 

[Lonewulf]

They would have been pushing "bull" in the eyes of the poarents and the parents wouldn't need to face this "bull" if, as they did, had the birth at home.

Okay, but you didn't clarify that you were using someone else's PoV. You said "who cares", not "they wouldn't care".

 

[DanishDynamite]

I have to warn you that I do have some legal knowledge, and that I know the actual answer to these questions.

I have to warn you that your legal opinions and knowledge are of no interest or relevance to the topic at hand.

But I'm just trying to get to your precise position, in order to expedite a meaningful response. Now, what's your answer?

What is your question?

My position in the case we are discussing should be clear.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Okay, but you didn't clarify that you were using someone else's PoV. You said "who cares", not "they wouldn't care".

Not understood. If you have a specific question regarding the rightious point of view regarding this travesty of justice, feel free to post this now.

 

[Architect]

I have to warn you that your legal opinions and knowledge are of no interest or relevance to the topic at hand.

Well, that's not really correct is it?

You've stated that the convinction is inappropriate because - in your view - there has to be an element of malice invovled for a crime to have been committed. As far as I can see this is, in fact, your entire argument. What I'm doing is just clarifying your precise position.

Because this isn't a case about legal "opinion". This is a case about legal fact. And not just in the US, but in most western legal systems. We've got several hundred years of case law, legislation, and so on which allows us to take a meaningful view on whether a crime may have been committed.

But as far as I can tell, you're unaware of this.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Well, that's not really correct is it?

Uh, yes of course it is.

You've stated that the convinction is inappropriate because - in your view - there has to be an element of malice invovled for a crime to have been committed. As far as I can see this is, in fact, your entire argument. What I'm doing is just clarifying your precise position.

No, my dear. My point was simply that sending a couple to jail for life, just because they were ignorant of the fact that "vegan" milk could not be absorbed by their baby in the same way that other milk can, was a travesty of justice. Try to get you warped mind around this simple concept.

Because this isn't a case about legal "opinion". This is a case about legal fact. And not just in the US, but in most western legal systems. We've got several hundred years of case law, legislation, and so on which allows us to take a meaningful view on whether a crime may have been committed.

But as far as I can tell, you're unaware of this.

As far as I can see, you are unaware about the point we are discussing.

No worries. This is often the case when we discuss Justice with lawyers.

 

[Architect]

So one of the cornerstones of western law regarding culpable responsibility is to be set at naught in favour of your personal incredulity?
You believe that recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) in so doing should not be a criminal offence?