I never INTENDED to hurt anyone.

Author: 3RU7AL ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 14
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 7,456
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    How do you QUANTIFY intentions?
    This isn't a deposition. You got to get to the point.
    Yes, you've convinced me that any legal or moral framework that relies on detecting INTENTIONS is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft.

    By your "consequentialist" view, nobody should ever be convicted of accidentally or unintentionally committing a crime.

    Isn't that one of the KEY legal obstacles to convicting TRUMP of many of his CRIMES?

    It's been argued that the Georgia phone call was NOT criminal if TRUMP sincerely believes that he really and truly WON.

    This would magically transform the phone call from being an implicit demand for falsifying vote tallies into an honest and sincere plea for "THE TRUTH".

    ALSO,

    There was a case a few years ago where a police officer accidentally entered a neighbor's apartment, mistakenly thinking it was their own apartment and mistook their neighbor for an INTRUDER and shot them dead.

    Their legal defense argued that it was not a crime because the officer sincerely believed their neighbor was an intruder.

    Police are protected by a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" which states that (IFF) the officer believed at the time that what they were doing was perfectly legal, (THEN) their case can be dismissed. [LINK]
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,282
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @3RU7AL
    Any logic, no matter how sound, that vindicates Trump, will be rejected by the Democrats and their liberal hordes.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,478
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @3RU7AL
    Police are protected by a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" which states that (IFF) the officer believed at the time that what they were doing was perfectly legal, (THEN) their case can be dismissed. [LINK]
    Regardless of the whole trump fiasco. That, above, is a problem
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 7,456
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Theweakeredge
    How Cops Get Away With Murder: Qualified Immunity (LegalEagle’s Law Review)

  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,478
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @3RU7AL
    I've actually already watched that, and as I said, the entire "qualified immunity" is a problem.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 7,456
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Theweakeredge
    the entire "qualified immunity" is a problem.
    I'll see you at the next BLM protest.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 7,456
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ethang5
    It is impossible to quantify what a person "sincerely believed at the time".
  • Polytheist-Witch
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 2,013
    2
    3
    3
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Polytheist-Witch
    --> @3RU7AL
    It is impossible to quantify what a person "sincerely believed at the time
    That is why there is evidence given to imply intent. Going to a home with a weapon compared to grabbing some thing close those kinds of choices. 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 7,456
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    That is why there is evidence given to imply intent.
    There is no way to prove "intent".
  • Polytheist-Witch
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 2,013
    2
    3
    3
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Polytheist-Witch
    --> @3RU7AL
    That's why I say imply. We can't know for sure but actions can give indications.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 7,456
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    That's why I say imply. We can't know for sure but actions can give indications.
    I wish I were as confident as you seem to be in your mind-reading abilities.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,282
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @3RU7AL
    It is impossible to quantify what a person "sincerely believed at the time".
    Liberals seem to have no problem reading Trump's mind.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,478
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @3RU7AL @ethang5
    You are correct that it is impossible to read Trump's mind; however, we can look through the logical implications and context of Trump's words. This is a thing established in court all of the time, but it is true that it is Trump sincerely believed what he said.

    There are a couple of points that point to that... not being the case:

    • Trump's admitted trait of lying (see the "I didn't say anything as to not create panic" tapes and those things)
    • Trump's several instances of criminal behavior and pardoning of those who are also criminal (and in a lot of cases not a little criminal, but a lotta criminal)
    • The actual phrasing of his request; "I just want to find 11,780 votes,"
    • The seeing, threat of blackmail if he refuses; ""You know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal offence. You can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer," 
    It is not a case of reading his mind, but finding what is most likely.

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,282
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Theweakeredge
    • Trump's admitted trait of lying (see the "I didn't say anything as to not create panic" tapes and those things)
    Untrue. He admitted a trait of concern for public safety. "Trait of lying" is your spin.

    • Trump's several instances of criminal behavior and pardoning of those who are also criminal (and in a lot of cases not a little criminal, but a lotta criminal)
    You would be more credible if you didn't call everything Trump did "criminal". Are you against the President's ability to pardon, or are you against whom he pardoned? Only people who have run afoul of the law need pardons. Trump, and indeed any President,  can only pardon criminals. Your condemnation here is not only illogical, but it shows how deeply you have been brainwashed.

    • The actual phrasing of his request; "I just want to find 11,780 votes,"
    Trump meant that the entire vote did not need to be verified, just 11,780. He was not asking for illegal votes, but for verification of legal votes.

    • The seeing, threat of blackmail if he refuses; ""You know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal offence. You can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer," 
    This is clearly true. If the vote was rigged and he knows it, validating the results would be criminal, and he and lawyer would  suffer penalties. How can the truth about our legal system be a threat? Trump is NOT saying, there will be penalties if you don't fake the vote in my favor, he's saying there will be penalties if you know the vote is fake and you validate it. This is true and there was nothing threatening about it.

    It is not a case of reading his mind, but finding what is most likely.
    You bias is not what is most likely. It isn't even what is likely.