Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Man raises demon in church. Is this a crime?

11011121315

Posts

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Why not? It's a fringe hypothetical, granted - but within that fringe hypothetical it certainly seems to meet the criteria. Besides, even in this wierd fringe case the law works pretty well - either the defendant doesn't actually have the nutso belief and rightfully gets off, or he affirms the nutso belief and gets treatment after copping an insanity defense.

    Why on earth would we want to alter the conception of the crime itself to insert an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success when doing so would offer a whole bunch of criminals a new line of defense, spurious thought it generally would be? Especially when the law still functions anyway.

    Basically, sure it sounds like you can fit the hypothetical into the definition of the law. But so what?

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    It's kind of staggering to me that so many people are arguing it's totally okay to make the decision to kill another human being, and to follow through with it, as long as you're crazy enough to do it in a nonsensical way.

    That's not what's going on at all. What people are saying is that he isn't guilty of attempted murder.

    You can be guilty of atempting to bomb a building, even if the feds gave you a set of plans that would never detonate. You can't be guilty of attempting to kill the tooth fairy because there is no tooth fairy, no matter how hell bent on it you are.

    This guys situation only has two end. If he believes he summoned up whatever it is and it can hurt people, he's criminally insane and should get a padded room. If he doesn't then he's just another jackass.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Why not? It's a fringe hypothetical, granted - but within that fringe hypothetical it certainly seems to meet the criteria. Besides, even in this wierd fringe case the law works pretty well - either the defendant doesn't actually have the nutso belief and rightfully gets off, or he affirms the nutso belief and gets treatment after copping an insanity defense.

    Why on earth would we want to alter the conception of the crime itself to insert an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success when doing so would offer a whole bunch of criminals a new line of defense, spurious thought it generally would be? Especially when the law still functions anyway.

    Basically, sure it sounds like you can fit the hypothetical into the definition of the law. But so what?

    You're the one doing this, not me.

    Attempted murder requires that the criminal actually do something physically substantial to the victim. Just preparing or having a plot to hurt someone isn't enough.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Why not? It's a fringe hypothetical, granted - but within that fringe hypothetical it certainly seems to meet the criteria. Besides, even in this wierd fringe case the law works pretty well - either the defendant doesn't actually have the nutso belief and rightfully gets off, or he affirms the nutso belief and gets treatment after copping an insanity defense.

    Why on earth would we want to alter the conception of the crime itself to insert an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success when doing so would offer a whole bunch of criminals a new line of defense, spurious thought it generally would be? Especially when the law still functions anyway.

    Basically, sure it sounds like you can fit the hypothetical into the definition of the law. But so what?

    You're the one doing this, not me.

    Attempted murder requires that the criminal actually do something physically substantial to the victim. Just preparing or having a plot to hurt someone isn't enough.

    The bold part is false.

    As the case where the woman who thought she poisoned her husband with arsenic, only later turning out to be sugar shows, it's the combination of murderous intent coupled with a murderous act that the perpetrator believes feasible that creates an attempted murder situation.

    And never once have I argued that this man is legally fit to stand trial, only that an attempted murder charge is the most logical means to remand him to psychiatric care.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Why not? It's a fringe hypothetical, granted - but within that fringe hypothetical it certainly seems to meet the criteria. Besides, even in this wierd fringe case the law works pretty well - either the defendant doesn't actually have the nutso belief and rightfully gets off, or he affirms the nutso belief and gets treatment after copping an insanity defense.

    Why on earth would we want to alter the conception of the crime itself to insert an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success when doing so would offer a whole bunch of criminals a new line of defense, spurious thought it generally would be? Especially when the law still functions anyway.

    Basically, sure it sounds like you can fit the hypothetical into the definition of the law. But so what?

    You're the one doing this, not me.

    Attempted murder requires that the criminal actually do something physically substantial to the victim. Just preparing or having a plot to hurt someone isn't enough.
    What? I don't have to hurt you to attempt to kill you. I have to TRY to. That seems pretty basic. By this definition, the fake bombing isn't attempted murder either; nothing 'physically substantial' happened there either. I mean, what's the difference between these two statements?

    1) I believe that by dialing this number on my cell phone, I will set off a bomb in the basement of my office building. I dial the number, but nothing happens because the explosives weren't real.

    2) I believe that by writing his name in my own blood I can summon Aezthoth to tear your heart out of your chest and kill you. I cut myself and write his name, but nothing happens because Azethoth isn't real.

    Where's the distinction that makes one of these attempted murder and the other not? It's not intent, that's there in both. Action is taken in both to act on that intent - I do what it I believe will result in the death of another. The only distinguishing feature that I can see between these statements is the plausability of the beliefs - neither was ever actually going to kill anyone, but because you can rationally say that the action of attempting to summon the demon wasn't actually going to do anything it somehow just doesn't count? I can't think of a reason one of these would be attempted murder and the other wouldn't except on those grounds, which is pretty clearly using an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success as a criteria for having committed the crime.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Again, it is not logistically sound to act on magical beliefs. It would break the whole damned system.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Why not? It's a fringe hypothetical, granted - but within that fringe hypothetical it certainly seems to meet the criteria. Besides, even in this wierd fringe case the law works pretty well - either the defendant doesn't actually have the nutso belief and rightfully gets off, or he affirms the nutso belief and gets treatment after copping an insanity defense.

    Why on earth would we want to alter the conception of the crime itself to insert an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success when doing so would offer a whole bunch of criminals a new line of defense, spurious thought it generally would be? Especially when the law still functions anyway.

    Basically, sure it sounds like you can fit the hypothetical into the definition of the law. But so what?

    You're the one doing this, not me.

    Attempted murder requires that the criminal actually do something physically substantial to the victim. Just preparing or having a plot to hurt someone isn't enough.

    The bold part is false.

    As the case where the woman who thought she poisoned her husband with arsenic, only later turning out to be sugar shows, it's the combination of murderous intent coupled with a murderous act that the perpetrator believes feasible that creates an attempted murder situation.

    And never once have I argued that this man is legally fit to stand trial, only that an attempted murder charge is the most logical means to remand him to psychiatric care.

    Because there is a thing as arsenic and it can kill you. There are no demons.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Again, it is not logistically sound to act on magical beliefs. It would break the whole damned system.

    It's not "acting on magical beliefs", it's acting on what the man believes is real.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    How does it break the system? If I don't realyl believe it, I haven't committed a crime. If I do really believe it, I can argue a defense from mental incompetance and be committed instead of convicted. There's nothing about it that 'breaks the system'; it actually seems to work pretty well.

    I get the feeling that we're arguing more over what it means to be found not guilty due to insanity than about the actions/crime itself.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Again, it is not logistically sound to act on magical beliefs. It would break the whole damned system.

    It's not "acting on magical beliefs", it's acting on what the man believes is real.

    And what he believes is real is magic.

    And then we have to act on what every person who believes in magic is real.

    And then we have just made the whole country really goddamn fucked up.

    --

    JJ: The sheer number of people we would have to lock up, either in prison or in the mental word, if we took what people believe in seriously would cause civil war. It's not practicable.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Why not? It's a fringe hypothetical, granted - but within that fringe hypothetical it certainly seems to meet the criteria. Besides, even in this wierd fringe case the law works pretty well - either the defendant doesn't actually have the nutso belief and rightfully gets off, or he affirms the nutso belief and gets treatment after copping an insanity defense.

    Why on earth would we want to alter the conception of the crime itself to insert an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success when doing so would offer a whole bunch of criminals a new line of defense, spurious thought it generally would be? Especially when the law still functions anyway.

    Basically, sure it sounds like you can fit the hypothetical into the definition of the law. But so what?

    You're the one doing this, not me.

    Attempted murder requires that the criminal actually do something physically substantial to the victim. Just preparing or having a plot to hurt someone isn't enough.

    The bold part is false.

    As the case where the woman who thought she poisoned her husband with arsenic, only later turning out to be sugar shows, it's the combination of murderous intent coupled with a murderous act that the perpetrator believes feasible that creates an attempted murder situation.

    And never once have I argued that this man is legally fit to stand trial, only that an attempted murder charge is the most logical means to remand him to psychiatric care.

    She attempted murder because she tried to poison her husband, and failed. A reasonable person recognizes that arsenic is a deadly poison. A reasonable person would not recognize that demons exist, and can be summoned to harm churchgoers.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    There are millions of people who literally believe God will kill at their command? That's it, I'm moving to Canada.

    Seriously I don't think I've heard of even one confirmed case that would actually fall within this hypothetical. Certainly not millions.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    There are millions of people who literally believe God will kill at their command? That's it, I'm moving to Canada.

    Seriously I don't think I've heard of even one confirmed case that would actually fall within this hypothetical. Certainly not millions.

    People pray for rapture pretty much all over the place, and believe that they can speed up the process in some cases.

    More or less conspiracy to commit genocide.

    Would you like to lead the posse to start locking down those churches?

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Unless they believe praying is a direct causal mechanism that will literally and innevitably cause God to smite the heathens on command, that's not even close to the same thing.

    And I've never met anyone who did believe that. Nor have I ever heard of anyone who did.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Unless they believe praying is a direct causal mechanism that will literally and innevitably cause God to smite the heathens on command, that's not even close to the same thing.

    And I've never met anyone who did believe that. Nor have I ever heard of anyone who did.

    We should all be so lucky.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    let's say they hypothetically do. I'm sure with a few minutes of googling I could find those people.

    criminals?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    In the same sense hypothetical demon boy is, sure. You may be able to find someone claiming to believe they can, through prayer, command Yaweh to incinerate sinners on the spot. However, if they DO believe that literally they'd be in the same utterly disconnected from reality situation that fruity demon summoner is, guilty but not necessarily culpable. at least, I think that's the phrase you'd use for a not guilty due to insanity verdict.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    What about Pat Robertson, who famously asked his followers to pray for supreme court justices to die or leave the court?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Can you prove he thought that if he prayed for it, God would immediately respond and give Sandra Day O'Connor a heart atack? Because that's what we'd be talking about. Anything less than a direct, God kills at my command belief is not the same thing.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    can you prove that this dude who "summoned a demon in the church" thought it would kill people? He certainly said that. Robertson also said what he said, and he's a taken pretty seriously as a religious dude by a lot of people.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    can you prove that this dude who "summoned a demon in the church" thought it would kill people? He certainly said that. Robertson also said what he said, and he's a taken pretty seriously as a religious dude by a lot of people.
    Not the same, Robertson is a Christian and respected, and it's not the same. Robertson is a respected Christian, you see. So, so it isn't the same.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm not talking specifically about this nutter; he said it might, possibly, affect some people in such a way that it was conceivable that they could kill themselves. Maybe. I also highly doubt he actually think he summoned a demon. He's not guilty of attempted murder, but it is conceivable that a hypothetical situation involving supposed demon summoning could be.

    Seriously, outside of hypotheticals like the direct comparison I posted it's not an issue. And, in that impossible hypothetical, the law functions just fine as far as I can tell.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    so what you are saying is that if we lived in a harry potter book he might be guilty of a crime

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    I was more referring to the act of planting a bomb.
    Really? I disagree that they're similar. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

    As opposed to a clear-cut and binding example of common law in action.
    And we must phrase our concept of what is real from the mind of the suspect: if he actually believed he was summoning a demon to do harm, we must treat it as such - because it demonstrates that this fellow is willing to do harm to others in ways he thinks are real.
    Actually, this is your assertion that you now must support with reasoning.

    Or to put it another way, the burden of proof is on you to show why this demonstrates legal guilt.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Why on earth would we want to alter the conception of the crime itself
    What?

    Crime does not exist in the eye of the beholder. Or the eye of the criminal. Crime means breaking the law.

    There are laws against attempting to kill people by doing things that would kill them. "Poisoning someone with arsenic" is such a thing. "Building a bomb and blowing it up" is such a thing.

    A person doesn't have to be successful at doing something that would kill a person to be guilty of attempted murder. A person could, for example, make a mistake in building the bomb, or mistake the poison for sugar, or mistake the FBI agent for a bomb-seller.

    However, a person has to at least try to do something that would kill a person to be found guilty.

    The alleged criminal in question did not "make a mistake." He wasn't trying to do something that would kill a person if he was not mistaken. He therefore does not constitute anywhere near the degree of harm to society as a "tricked" bomb-builder or poisoner. It makes no sense to punish him for the same crime.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Rob, to spell this out a bit more, here is the problem with what you are arguing.

    Constructing a bomb (unless you are licensed to) is an illegal act.

    Summoning a demon is not an illegal act.
    Just to be clear, the act portion of a crime does not have to be "bad" or illegal in of itself for a crime to occur. The act of shooting a gun can be perfectly fine, in of itself, but if it is done with the appropriate mens rea , it becomes a crime.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Rob, to spell this out a bit more, here is the problem with what you are arguing.

    Constructing a bomb (unless you are licensed to) is an illegal act.

    Summoning a demon is not an illegal act.
    Just to be clear, the act portion of a crime does not have to be "bad" or illegal in of itself for a crime to occur. The act of shooting a gun can be perfectly fine, in of itself, but if it is done with the appropriate mens rea , it becomes a crime.

    That doesn't quite work, does it? I mean, I assume you mean that if a person fires a gun at a shooting range, they're not committing a crime. If they fire it with the intent to kill someone, they are.

    But they wouldn't be committing a crime if they fired a gun at the ground with the intent to kill someone in China. They'd just be crazy. We have a system in place for figuring out whether or not you're crazy before we prosecute or sentence you, it's not just action+intent=crime.

  • AtomikaAtomika genius of the restoration Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Getting back to the OP, what are the criminal charges that this guy can possibly face?

    I can't think of anything stronger than harassment, and that's only if the guy claims to have been making a practical joke. Otherwise, if he believes he can actually summon demons to kill people, as long as he isn't going past that point he's well within his religious freedoms to do so.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Rob, to spell this out a bit more, here is the problem with what you are arguing.

    Constructing a bomb (unless you are licensed to) is an illegal act.

    Summoning a demon is not an illegal act.
    Just to be clear, the act portion of a crime does not have to be "bad" or illegal in of itself for a crime to occur. The act of shooting a gun can be perfectly fine, in of itself, but if it is done with the appropriate mens rea , it becomes a crime.

    That doesn't quite work, does it? I mean, I assume you mean that if a person fires a gun at a shooting range, they're not committing a crime. If they fire it with the intent to kill someone, they are.

    But they wouldn't be committing a crime if they fired a gun at the ground with the intent to kill someone in China. They'd just be crazy. We have a system in place for figuring out whether or not you're crazy before we prosecute or sentence you, it's not just action+intent=crime.
    The point I'm trying to make is that without the existence of the requisite mens rea, an act doesn't constitute a crime (though there are some exceptions, but they tend to be limited to very minor crimes).

    Shooting a gun into the ground to kill someone in China might meet the technical requirements of attempted murder (though there may be defenses, such as the concept of impossibility), but it's not something you are likely to get charged for.

    And as for the insanity defense- being legally insane basically means you did not have the requisite mens rea for the requirements of a crime to be fulfilled.

    If a prosecutor shows that the requisite mental state and act were present, then he's met his burden of proof in showing that a crime occurred. After that, various legal defenses can come into play to either justify the crime (such as self defense) or to excuse the perpetrator from criminal liability (such as the insanity defense).

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The point I'm trying to make is that without the existence of the requisite mens rea, an act doesn't constitute a crime (though there are some exceptions, but they tend to be limited to very minor crimes).
    I think you're overthinking this. My point was that performing an act that would never result in killing someone doesn't satisfy this particular concept in jurisprudence.

    Even if we accept that this person satisfies mens rea (which I do not), mens rea + performing an act that would never harm anyone even if it "works" is not grounds for prosecution. Comparing this to a bomb makes no sense because, even if a bomber fails or is mistaken in assembling a bomb, he is still performing an act that would, or could, kill people.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question. The relevant question in this hypothetical is whether or not Demonlover McNutso thought they were, and that his actions would actually summon one expressly resulting in someone's death. As many people have pointed out, it's not really a practical legal question - either you admit this belief and have a tailor made insanity defense, or you deny the belief and beat the charge since only your own testimony could reasonably serve to prove this point. It's more of an interesting academic question, and I agree with Rob. Assuming you actually believe that demons exist and that performing a specific incantation/ceremony/whatever will conjure such a demon who will then kill someone, performing that ceremony probably qualifies as attempted murder.

    I'm not convicned that assumption has ever actually been met. I certainly don't think any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard of meets that description, nor does this specific demon dude.

    why do you guys keep saying this?

    if anything, it's conspiracy (with a magical being) to cause severe emotional suffering.

    which is not attempted murder you fuckwits.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    If they can be proven to have acted on what they thought was a murderous plot, then isn't that the very definition of attempted murder?

    stop with the attempted murder shit, will you?

    if anything, it's conspiracy. and it wasn't murder, it was conspiracy to cause emotional suffering.

    if you want to actually discuss this stupidity seriously, then do so.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    If they can be proven to have acted on what they thought was a murderous plot, then isn't that the very definition of attempted murder?

    stop with the attempted murder shit, will you?

    if anything, it's conspiracy. and it wasn't murder, it was conspiracy to cause emotional suffering.

    if you want to actually discuss this stupidity seriously, then do so.
    The attempted murder discussion is stupid, since no law enforcement official is considering any such charges.

    The only legal issue in serious consideration here is the question of free speech and whether this guy should be charged with some sort of crime based on the harassing/offensive content of what he said and did.

    He's an idiotic douche bag, but I support his right to be one, even if his stupid little ritual offended someone. Of course, if he goes back to the church, they have every right to have him arrested for trespassing.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    If they can be proven to have acted on what they thought was a murderous plot, then isn't that the very definition of attempted murder?

    stop with the attempted murder shit, will you?

    if anything, it's conspiracy. and it wasn't murder, it was conspiracy to cause emotional suffering.

    if you want to actually discuss this stupidity seriously, then do so.
    The attempted murder discussion is stupid, since no law enforcement official is considering any such charges.

    The only legal issue in serious consideration here is the question of free speech and whether this guy should be charged with some sort of crime based on the harassing/offensive content of what he said and did.

    He's an idiotic douche bag, but I support his right to be one, even if his stupid little ritual offended someone. Of course, if he goes back to the church, they have every right to have him arrested for trespassing.

    personally, i think harassment is a stretch, but possible if they really, really want to get this guy.

    and i agree with you about the stupidity, but there are still two guys in here who think "attempted murder" is the right charge. i think they simply haven't really put enough thought into their position.

    let's see if they bother to come back with some kind of explanation for why it should be attempted fucking murder as opposed to conspiracy to cause emotional suffering (i.e., harassment).

    i'm thinking they'll either:

    1) opine on the metaphysical nature of demons (i.e., "the demon equates to a weapon, not a being, so it's like using a bomb, not like talking to a co-conspirator), which means they have gone off the cliff and are now permanent residents of stupid land; or

    2) concede that the best charge they could get is harassment and not attempted murder and we can all go home happy.

    i don't really see a third option for them, but maybe i'm missing something.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When did I ever say this guy should get charged with attempted murder? I just said that a certain hypothetical case inolving demon summoning could potentially meet the requirements, and that even in such an impossible fringe case the law as written works pretty well. I'm still not seeing what the big fight is about.

    Also, this particular douchenozzle is indeed a douchenozzle. More to come at 11.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question. The relevant question in this hypothetical is whether or not Demonlover McNutso thought they were, and that his actions would actually summon one expressly resulting in someone's death. As many people have pointed out, it's not really a practical legal question - either you admit this belief and have a tailor made insanity defense, or you deny the belief and beat the charge since only your own testimony could reasonably serve to prove this point. It's more of an interesting academic question, and I agree with Rob. Assuming you actually believe that demons exist and that performing a specific incantation/ceremony/whatever will conjure such a demon who will then kill someone, performing that ceremony probably qualifies as attempted murder.

    I'm not convicned that assumption has ever actually been met. I certainly don't think any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard of meets that description, nor does this specific demon dude.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yeah, and this guy didn't summon a demon specifically to kill someone; he thought it might be a slight possibility for some person who happened to react that way, maybe, if they already had some issues or something. Even more importantly, I'd bet a testicle* that he doesn't actually believe he can summon a demon anyway. Again, I'm not talking about this specific example.

    *not my testicle, but I probably can find one somewhere.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Man I love the level of discourse ITT, class acts all around

  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Man I love the level of discourse ITT, class acts all around

    itt someone acts dumb for pages and pages, complains about it

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Man I love the level of discourse ITT, class acts all around

    itt someone acts dumb for pages and pages, complains about it

    20080320.gif

Sign In or Register to comment.