Re: Breaking eggs
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Jim Choate" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that both me and Ray would NOT consider drawing pictures to be a crime... Now explain WHY. Huh? Because. g I think crimes are acts that violate someone's rights. Drawing pictures don't do that. [Even if they include your image.] Mark
Re: Breaking eggs
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Jim Choate" [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's the reason that tentative is punished (almost) as if it succeeded. Tentative means to 'try as a trial'. I don't think this is the word you're looking for. This might be a false friend; "tentative" in Romanian means "attempt". The point that you're missing is that a person waiving a gun around is itself a clear and present danger, whether the trigger gets pulled intentionaly or not. "Waiving" is undefined. Are you advocating shooting cops who are following criminals with guns in their hands? Carelessness should still be punished, but this is different from "shooting a gun at random in a crowd and failing to hurt anybody". If by failing to act you are prevented from ever acting then it is justified provided it is clear the other party intends to act (and yes, waiving a gun around demonstrates intent). Trying to claim that one only has a right to self defence after one is dead is either confused thinking or indication of an alterior motive. I'm not claiming anything like this; you're confusing me with someone else. Clear and present danger is a correct justification for acting. I agree with Ayn Rand here (something which I don't do often), in cases of emergencies all bets are off, you don't start calculating the odds of hurting an innocent man when someone is attacking you. Mark
Re: Breaking eggs
I'm of the opinion that an *attempted* crime should probably be punished as a crime. The question is of action, knowledge, and intent, rather than result. I'm also of the opinion that people do not have the right to take reasonably foreseeable risks with other people's lives or property, and that doing so is reasonable to define as a crime. A man who fires a gun into a crowd, without the permission of the people in that crowd, has committed a crime by risking the lives and well-being of others. A man who merely waves a gun around has not yet committed a crime, but the police probably ought to stop him anyway. I don't say he should be tried, convicted and found guilty of something, but a police entity of some sort seems to be the most effective means at society's disposal for defusing the situation. And that's a distinction that a lot of folks never think about; there is a lot of ground between "Needs to be stopped before someone gets hurt" and "Has Committed a Crime." Sometimes a police officer has more knowledge of the situation than someone else does; the guy throwing rocks into the water off the cliff may not know that it's a pearl bed and there are a lot of pearl divers down there at this time of morning. The police officer who knows that, needs to stop the guy from throwing rocks. Has the guy committed a crime? Probably not, but if he's hurt someone he ought to be responsible to that person or that person's family. But if he goes on throwing rocks after the police stop him the first time, he has committed a crime and needs to be charged, tried, and convicted. It's popular to debate clear, bright lines of law and ethics, but the fact is that we make the police responsible both for things that are crimes and for things that are not, and that sometimes the same act can be a non-crime that just needs to be stopped, or a crime whose perpetrator requires arrest, depending on the knowledge and intent of the actor. So, we don't really have clear bright lines that give themselves to absolutist interpretation. Bear
Re: Breaking eggs
At 01:53 PM 8/22/2000 -0400, you wrote: I'm of the opinion that an *attempted* crime should probably be punished as a crime. The question is of action, knowledge, and intent, rather than result. oh no! i *attempted* to hand-draw a naked eight-year-old in a sexually compromising position, but due to my miserable art skills, it came out like this: O+- arrest me now! (for my lack of drawing talent, if nothing else :-) ) rght -landon [heh, i did a search: anyone who's installed diablo II has the above depiction of an 8-year-old kid embedded in one of the data files. oooh, evil child pornographers, we knew *that* game was bad and godless and stuff, get thee out, out!]
Re: Breaking eggs
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "landon dyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm of the opinion that an *attempted* crime should probably be punished as a crime. The question is of action, knowledge, and intent, rather than result. oh no! i *attempted* to hand-draw a naked eight-year-old in a sexually compromising position, but due to my miserable art skills, it came out like this: I think that both me and Ray would NOT consider drawing pictures to be a crime... Mark
Re: Breaking eggs
Yes. That would be what I believe. Let's turn the question around- is it morally correct to throw someone in jail for a year or more for an action which has not caused the slightest injury to anyone based on the argument that the action MIGHT cause injury to someone? If that action was randomly shooting a gun into a crowd of people and by some act of God didn't actually cause the bullet to strike any person or property causing damage. I say yea, lock them away and a year wouldn't be long enough. Some actions while not actually causing injury shouldn't be tolerated. -- Matt ElliottHigh Performance Data Management Team 217-265-0257mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Breaking eggs
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Matt Elliott" [EMAIL PROTECTED] If that action was randomly shooting a gun into a crowd of people and by some act of God didn't actually cause the bullet to strike any person or property causing damage. I say yea, lock them away and a year wouldn't be long enough. Some actions while not actually causing injury shouldn't be tolerated. That's the reason that tentative is punished (almost) as if it succeeded. Mark
