9/11 Murderers: Reconsidering the MNaughton Rule

Awwwwww c'mon, OmSig.

You've got time to snipe at Setanta but you don't have time to answer my honest question?

Just in case you missed it:

Quote:

Z. Moussaoui was arrested for overstaying his visa.

He did not actually take part in 911 because he was already in jail.

Now if should judge people only on what they have done but not on what they had intended or thought then I suppose you think Moussaoui should just be deported? Maybe pay a fine? What?

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Who decides whether the M'Naghten rule applies? Is it strictly up to the defense to invoke it? Or is it the judge who decides whether or not to admit such a defense?

The defendant would first raise the insanity defense. It would then be up to the jury to decide if the M'Naghten Rule would apply.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

I think that applying the Rule is nearly impossible since most people attempt to hide their crimes it shows that they knew what they were doing was wrong.

The insanity defense is nearly impossible. Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, it is rarely invoked, and once invoked it is even more rarely successful.

0 Replies

Here's another example:

A Beverly Hills lawyer was recently arrested in Nevada.

He had arranged, via computer, to buy the virginity of a 13 year old girl from her father here in Oregon.

The lawyer and the "father" crossed state lines to carry out the deal but it was a sting and the lawyer was arrested.

He actually hadn't yet commited a crime.

Should he go free or should his intentions matter?

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Okay. Wait a sec.

OK; I 'm still scraping some of Setana 's venom off.

Quote:

I want to see if I understand your position, OmSig....

Z. Moussaoui was arrested for overstaying his visa.

He did not actually take part in 911 because he was already in jail.

Now if should judge people only on what they have done but not on what they had intended or thought then I suppose you think Moussaoui should just be deported? Maybe pay a fine? What?

Well, actually, I began this thread with asking a question
regarding the concept of immunity from penalties,
by virtue of insanity.
I was not arguing ANY position, in offering this thread.

I don 't see that he committed a crime,
unless u accept the notion that the act of coming here,
with felonious intent, is an attempt to commit a felony.

In my opinion,
simply quietly withholding information,
in and of itself, cannot be a crime.
He is within his 13th Amendment rights ( as I see it )
to just mind his own business.
This might not be true,
if there were additional prior acts of involvement,
in preparation for crime perpetrated by others,
in which case, there may be criminal liability for complicity.

I don 't know whether simply coming here,
with felonious intentions and withholding information are or are not logically sufficient
to constitute complicity in murders executed by others.

Another question is whether he shud be deemed a prisoner of war,
and invited to stay in Guantanamo for the foreseeable future.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Awwwwww c'mon, OmSig.

You've got time to snipe at Setanta but you don't have time to answer my honest question?

Not at all; I enjoyed your question,
and I 've answered it.

Quote:

Just in case you missed it:

Quote:
Z. Moussaoui was arrested for overstaying his visa.

He did not actually take part in 911 because he was already in jail.

Now if should judge people only on what they have done but not on what they had intended or thought then I suppose you think Moussaoui should just be deported? Maybe pay a fine? What?

If u have any follow up questions,
I 'll be glad to consider them.
David

0 Replies

Okay.... but you did say:

Quote:

People shud be judged by what they DO,
not by their motives

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Here's another example:

A Beverly Hills lawyer was recently arrested in Nevada.

He had arranged, via computer, to buy the virginity of a 13 year old girl from her father here in Oregon.

The lawyer and the "father" crossed state lines to carry out the deal but it was a sting and the lawyer was arrested.

He actually hadn't yet commited a crime.

Should he go free or should his intentions matter?

The heart of the question
is whether simply going somewhere with unlawful intentions
can reasonably be considered an attempt to perpetrate the act.
In my opinion,
it can be reasonably considered to be an attempt at the act,
if it be proven that he went there for that purpose.

Reasonable minds cud disagree.
Some cud say that he shud have up until that point in time
when he is actually about to do it,
to change his mind and go home.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Okay.... but you did say:

Quote:

People shud be judged by what they DO,
not by their motives

I think the question is
as to where the line shud be drawn
as to when the unlawful act BEGINS.

If one goes to rob a bank,
does the crime begin when he gets there n demands the money,
or when he ( or his gang ) gets into the car to go.

0 Replies

om sig, I know youre not a kied. Do you do a lot of text messaging?
Youre quite a trip .

0 Replies

I think its a fair question...

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

om sig, I know youre not a kied.
Do you do a lot of text messaging?

No, but I 'm kind of into sound reasoning n good logic.
The old non-fonetic way of spelling is good for more than 95%
of the words, in that thay r all fonetic,
but there r a few straglers that r still spelled
as Chaucer wud 've done it.
Its like carrying 10 of useless iron around all the time,
in exchange for no money,
because u forgot its in your luggage. I did that for quite a few
decades, without thinking about it,
but one of my ways of trying to help my fellow beings
is to show that there is an ez way to get the same job done
and little children shud be taught ( taut ) the better way.

I believe that people shud have the most happiness
n the least discomfort in their lives as possible,
consistent with considerations of justice;
( credit to Jeremy Bentham ).

Quote:

Youre quite a trip .

I 've heard that for quite a few decades now,
starting with my mother and my good friends.

I think of it as being creative,
together with being libertarian ( i.e., doing whatever I dam please ).
This is AMERICA.

David

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I think its a fair question...

...I hope u think its a fair answer.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

boomerang wrote:

If one goes to rob a bank,
does the crime begin when he gets there n demands the money,
or when he ( or his gang ) gets into the car to go.[/b]

If I point a gun at you and announce that I'm going to kill you, then take the gun off cock, put it away, and calmly walk away, saying that I have changed my mind, am I guilty of attampted murder or just threatening?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In my opinion,
simply quietly withholding information,
in and of itself, cannot be a crime.
He is within his 13th Amendment rights ( as I see it )
to just mind his own business.

His 13th amendment rights? You mean someone was trying to enslave him?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
In my opinion,
simply quietly withholding information,
in and of itself, cannot be a crime.
He is within his 13th Amendment rights ( as I see it )
to just mind his own business.

His 13th amendment rights? You mean someone was trying to enslave him?

Yeah, I noticed that, too. Forgot to question it.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
boomerang wrote:

If one goes to rob a bank,
does the crime begin when he gets there n demands the money,
or when he ( or his gang ) gets into the car to go.[/b]

If I point a gun at you and announce that I'm going to kill you, then take the gun off cock, put it away, and calmly walk away, saying that I have changed my mind, am I guilty of attampted murder or just threatening?

U r restating my question, in different words.
Reasonable minds can disagree.
The line of demarcation will be arbitrarily drawn,
by statutory or judicial authority.

In my opinion,
if he changed his mind b4 he popped off a round,
it was just a threat.
David

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
In my opinion,
simply quietly withholding information,
in and of itself, cannot be a crime.
He is within his 13th Amendment rights ( as I see it )
to just mind his own business.

His 13th amendment rights?

You mean someone was trying to enslave him?

My point is that, in keeping with his 13th Amendment rights,
if he is criminally charged with withholding information,
he can logically say, " I 'm not your slave; how much was I getting paid
to render this service ? " i.e., that he had no greater duty to render
information to the police
than he had to clean the windows in the police station.

This might not be true,
if he had already actively been guilty of complicity
with the criminals who executed the dirty deed.

I don 't believe that misprision of felony
is consistent with the 13th Amendment.
David

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, i've said nothing of the sort. I am saying that you peddle propaganda,
which is not the same at all as simply propagating ideas.
Rant how you will, that won't change.

Your powers of analysis r not making a very good impression.

I like your dog, tho.
He reminds me of my friend Skippy, of about 60 years ago.
I hope u don 't sic him on me.
David

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
In my opinion,
simply quietly withholding information,
in and of itself, cannot be a crime.
He is within his 13th Amendment rights ( as I see it )
to just mind his own business.

His 13th amendment rights? You mean someone was trying to enslave him?

Point of information, Joe ?

Does 1908 have some particular
significance as to partying ?
David

0 Replies

9/11 Murderers: Reconsidering the MNaughton Rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

9/11 Murderers: Reconsidering the MNaughton Rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

9/11 Murderers: Reconsidering the MNaughton Rule