Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd
You negate yourself within the same post...Pretty tough to do that, too... 
First, it's this... You EXPLICITLY stated that MALICE was required in order to prove guilt.
And now, when you actually post the information, it only talks about INTENT. I'd like you to tell me how the hell can someone do something "accidentally malicious"...  |
If you're finished guffawing at your confusion.
The point was that "malice" is not required for a conviction.
Successfully claiming "accident" would obviously get one out of this law regardless of whether the word "malice" existed there.
There is no confusion there, except on your part.
I never claimed anything about "accidentally malicious".
Try to keep up, cause you're laughing at your own strawman...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
Just the fact that I used the word "malicious" already INCLUDES the fact that it has to be intentional...
|
You're confused.
I even UNDERLINED and ITALICIZED the relevant combination, but you still couldn't get it.
For something to be malicious, it has to have:
a) intent (which is something you showed), and
b) the intent is to DO HARM (which is something completely lacking from your definition)
THAT is the point.
Are you so blind that you suddenly think "Hey! I got one word out of the definition right, so the entire definition must fit!"
To state the point explicitly, so hopefully you can get it the second time, you have not shown any part of the definition where you have to prove the intent was
"to do harm".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
Just the fact that I used the word "malicious" already INCLUDES the fact that it has to be intentional...
|
Meaningless non-sequitur.
You really are lost.
Yes. Malice does require "intent".
My point is that not all "intent" is "malice".
It doesn't matter whether or not "malice" is present or not. Lack of malice does not excuse one from the crime.
(And if you think about it, why the heck would anybody want to make the law require proof of "malice"???)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
That's just absurd...
Every single person sitting in jail right now because they shot someone was because "proof of malice" was shown...If not, they'd all be free on self-defense...
|
Are you thoroughly lost?
You're not even making sense at this stage.
KEEP IT IN CONTEXT.
For THIS crime, NOTHING on the issue of "malice" has to be proven.
And then you go ahead and say this...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
Why do you think "manslaughter" evens exists?!??!...because it's "lack of malice"...Yup...
|
"manslaughter" demonstrates ANOTHER law where an act is illegal WHEN NO "malice" is present.
Forest for the trees.
Try reading and comprehending.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
Now WHO in this case has been convicted of "intentionally leaking the information"?...No one...
WHO in this case has been indicted of "intentionally leaking the information"?...No one...
So mentioning that "intentinally leaking the information IS the crime" is the exact same thing as saying "The sky is blue"...
|
1) No. It's not the "same thing" because earlier YOU tried to claim that "malice" was required for the discussed act to be illegal.
INTENT is required. Yes.
MALICE, which is MORE than just simple "intent" is not required.
2) Again, I'm faced with the situation where we have a dead body, with a knife sticking out of the back, and cnredd is proclaiming "no conviction. nobody has been convicted!"
Obviously a crime HAS BEEN committed.
The fact that there has not been enough evidence to proceed with what would obviously be a highly scrutinized and political issue is not proof of a lack of a crime.
O.J's ex still has no conviction too...
