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?

18911131416

Posts

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The guy didn't unleash the imaginary demon with the specific intention of it killing these people. He'd said in the article that whatever he thought he summoned would cause people emotional distress... perhaps enough that they'd off themselves. Even by its most loose definition, that ain't attempted murder or anything like it.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • reVersereVerse Never odd or even Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    That's completely different. A truck full of bombs has a very high likelihood of killing people. A demon not only doesn't, it doesn't exist.

    But there wasn't a car full of bombs. Clearly the man should be let go since his actions so far aren't hurting anyone. Don't want to go around arresting anyone for intent now do we?

    Bombs exist.

    Demons do not exist.

    This is where your comparison fails.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    So Rob, do you think any Christian who prays to God to kill or torture people (including gays, pro-choice people, atheists, etc) should be guilty of a crime of attempt?

    If someone expressed an open and honest desire to kill people I would be all for them being forced to go through mental evaluation.

    PSN: allenquid
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    That's completely different. A truck full of bombs has a very high likelihood of killing people. A demon not only doesn't, it doesn't exist.
    The crime of attempt consists of a specific intent to commit an offense and in addition some action that is more than just preparation. The fact the crime was not possible to commit does not constitute a defense.

    An impossible outcome is not a permissible defence against attempted murder.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    This person, of his own free will
    • Prepared a demon summoning ritual
    • Observed the church until he found a quiet period to enter it
    • Entered the church when empty to perform his ritual uninterrupted
    • Performed the ritual
    • Left and bragged about how he had summoned a demon that would drive the church goers to suicide

    The fact that his ritual is rooted in silliness is notwithstanding: he carefully planned out and executed a plot with murderous intent.

    i dont mean to be dismissive or rude but i have no idea how any reasonable person could consider that attempted anything.

    Law isn't about being reasonable.

    Fuck people, an impossible outcome is not a permissible defence against a plot executed with murderous intent.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    reVerse wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    That's completely different. A truck full of bombs has a very high likelihood of killing people. A demon not only doesn't, it doesn't exist.

    But there wasn't a car full of bombs. Clearly the man should be let go since his actions so far aren't hurting anyone. Don't want to go around arresting anyone for intent now do we?

    Bombs exist.

    Demons do not exist.

    This is where your comparison fails.

    Where it succeeds, however, is demonstrating that intent is important. I, for one, don't like letting people run around trying to kill people until they do so in a fashion that works.

    PSN: allenquid
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thomas
    This case contributes to the body of case law involving impossibility. In this case the crime was impossible to commit, unbeknown to the defendants. The crime of attempt consists of a specific intent to commit an offense and in addition some action that is more than just preparation. The fact the crime was not possible to commit does not constitute a defense.[1]
    I don't see why there should be an exception just because the method of attempt is retarded.

    im surprised you guys are still arguing this.

    i plan on murdering someone. the way i plan to do it is by buying him candy and letting him eat it until he gets diabetes. then one day, he might die of it if he forgets to take his injections.

    attempted murder?

    stop being silly guys.
    The crime of attempt consists of a specific intent to commit an offense and in addition some action that is more than just preparation. The fact the crime was not possible to commit does not constitute a defense

    so youre saying i should be convicted of attempted murder because i bought some guy candy?

    now we really are in stupid land.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    And Qingu, it could be argued very well that prayer is restricted to preparation. If this fellow had prayed to the demons, there wouldn't be an issue. The reason many of us are interested in seeing him locked up and evaluated are that he constructed a complex plot and executed it - and that plot included troubling parallels with planting a bomb.
    That's certainly splitting hairs.

    It's not like Christians also don't have elaborate rituals surrounding their attempts to communicate with their god and direct their god's actions.

    I think your "troubling parallels" argument does have some merit. But he didn't say anything about a bomb. His description was just specific. If a Christian prayed to God to strike down a specific person in a specific location, which has obviously happened many times, I fail to see the distinction.

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    That's completely different. A truck full of bombs has a very high likelihood of killing people. A demon not only doesn't, it doesn't exist.
    The crime of attempt consists of a specific intent to commit an offense and in addition some action that is more than just preparation. The fact the crime was not possible to commit does not constitute a defense.

    An impossible outcome is not a permissible defence against attempted murder.
    See above. You have no legal precedent for applying that to this case.

    Also,
    The guy didn't unleash the imaginary demon with the specific intention of it killing these people. He'd said in the article that whatever he thought he summoned would cause people emotional distress... perhaps enough that they'd off themselves. Even by its most loose definition, that ain't attempted murder or anything like it.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    That's completely different. A truck full of bombs has a very high likelihood of killing people. A demon not only doesn't, it doesn't exist.

    But there wasn't a car full of bombs. Clearly the man should be let go since his actions so far aren't hurting anyone. Don't want to go around arresting anyone for intent now do we?

    Bombs exist.

    Demons do not exist.

    This is where your comparison fails.

    Where it succeeds, however, is demonstrating that intent is important. I, for one, don't like letting people run around trying to kill people until they do so in a fashion that works.
    I never said intent was important. Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends. Otherwise it gets very silly, very fast.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    so youre saying i should be convicted of attempted murder because i bought some guy candy?

    now we really are in stupid land.

    Don't be ridiculous he's saying you should be arrested for thinking about it.

    Spoiler:
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    A man in Dallas was arrested in an FBI sting when he took what he thought to be a car full of bombs into a parking garage and tried to detonate them. Of course, since the car was provided by the FBI there were no bombs in the car, his only action was dialing a phone number.

    By your reasoning he should be let go since there's no way he could kill someone only by dialing a phone, no matter what he thought/wanted to happen.

    Or, we could be sane, and realize that someone being crazy and murderous doesn't make them less murderous.

    how did the truck get there? why did he think it was full of bombs? what other actions did he take? did he purchase items he thought were illegal? did he assemble the bombs? did he have accomplices? what is his background? what kinds of previous actions had he taken?

    each case is different. summoning a demon =/= buying shit, assembling them into bombs (but for the fact that one ingredient was not c-4), and trying to blow people up.

    the facts of the case actually matter.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    So Rob, do you think any Christian who prays to God to kill or torture people (including gays, pro-choice people, atheists, etc) should be guilty of a crime of attempt?

    If someone expressed an open and honest desire to kill people I would be all for them being forced to go through mental evaluation.
    Great. What order of magnitude of people do you think were praying for God to strike town "Tiller the baby killer" and then cheered his death? I would guess from 10 to 100 thousand. Should they all be locked up?

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I can see both sides of the argument here. The intention is important because eventually the cthulu guy is going to realize that his summoning isn't working and will just go out and buy a gun to kill you with.

    well, we can get him when he buys the gun and brings it to church.

    that's the price we have pay for not criminalizing thoughts.

    We do, however, criminalize intentions. And while I'd agree with Mikeman that it doesn't necessarily require attempted murder, if the guy's serious I'd have no problem with him being forcibly entered into an institution.

    actually, we don't really criminalize intentions either. we criminalize actions. no intention alone, without action, can ever be criminalized. would the "summoning" satisfy the actus reas requirement? maybe in stupid world. but im confident that we don't live in stupid world.

    A man in Dallas was arrested in an FBI sting when he took what he thought to be a car full of bombs into a parking garage and tried to detonate them. Of course, since the car was provided by the FBI there were no bombs in the car, his only action was dialing a phone number.

    By your reasoning he should be let go since there's no way he could kill someone only by dialing a phone, no matter what he thought/wanted to happen.

    Or, we could be sane, and realize that someone being crazy and murderous doesn't make them less murderous.

    The key difference here is that a phone exists and could detonate a car bomb(which also exist). Where as demons don't exist, and there for he could not summon one.

    Using your standard ANY preacher who EVER calls for gods judgement to come down and smite someone, would also need to be charged with attempted murder.

    This whole discussion makes me think of LARPers. IF they really really believe they are shooting a magic missile, then they are attempting murder.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    And Qingu, it could be argued very well that prayer is restricted to preparation. If this fellow had prayed to the demons, there wouldn't be an issue. The reason many of us are interested in seeing him locked up and evaluated are that he constructed a complex plot and executed it - and that plot included troubling parallels with planting a bomb.
    That's certainly splitting hairs.

    It's not like Christians also don't have elaborate rituals surrounding their attempts to communicate with their god and direct their god's actions.

    I think your "troubling parallels" argument does have some merit. But he didn't say anything about a bomb. His description was just specific. If a Christian prayed to God to strike down a specific person in a specific location, which has obviously happened many times, I fail to see the distinction.

    Remember that guy who brought an AR-15 to the Obama town hall? He and his pastor pray for god to kill Obama. They haven't been arrested.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    This person, of his own free will
    • Prepared a demon summoning ritual
    • Observed the church until he found a quiet period to enter it
    • Entered the church when empty to perform his ritual uninterrupted
    • Performed the ritual
    • Left and bragged about how he had summoned a demon that would drive the church goers to suicide

    The fact that his ritual is rooted in silliness is notwithstanding: he carefully planned out and executed a plot with murderous intent.

    i dont mean to be dismissive or rude but i have no idea how any reasonable person could consider that attempted anything.

    Pretty much how I feel. I also wouldn't feel threatened if somebody told me they were going to off me via demon summoning.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    This person, of his own free will
    • Prepared a demon summoning ritual
    • Observed the church until he found a quiet period to enter it
    • Entered the church when empty to perform his ritual uninterrupted
    • Performed the ritual
    • Left and bragged about how he had summoned a demon that would drive the church goers to suicide

    The fact that his ritual is rooted in silliness is notwithstanding: he carefully planned out and executed a plot with murderous intent.

    i dont mean to be dismissive or rude but i have no idea how any reasonable person could consider that attempted anything.

    Law isn't about being reasonable.

    Fuck people, an impossible outcome is not a permissible defence against a plot executed with murderous intent.

    actually, the practice of law is all about being reasonable. i should know, being a lawyer and all.

    are you a law student or something? wait until you get some actual practice in the field.

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    This whole discussion makes me think of LARPers. IF they really really believe they are shooting a magic missile, then they are attempting murder.

    o_O

    I'd say they were insane and thus not guilty.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.

    why limit this to murder? what about assault and battery? drunk driving?

    i was intending to have a drink tonight, then probably go driving. i had the drink but my friends overpowered me and took the keys from me, those sons of bitches. i still got drunk as hell though. attempted drunk driving for the win, baby!

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    This whole discussion makes me think of LARPers. IF they really really believe they are shooting a magic missile, then they are attempting murder.
    I wouldn't mind locking them up either. It would keep everybody not mentally ill safer.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.

    why limit this to murder? what about assault and battery? drunk driving?

    i was intending to have a drink tonight, then probably go driving. i had the drink but my friends overpowered me and took the keys from me, those sons of bitches. i still got drunk as hell though. attempted drunk driving for the win, baby!

    http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/driving_or_attempting_to_drive_with_excess_alcohol.htm
    Attempting to drive can include any effort to use a vehicle regardless of whether it is successful. It is established law that when a drunk person attempted to start a car, but failed, his intention was to drive and he was therefore convicted, regardless of the fact that he could not actually get the car to move. Even if the vehicle is incapable of working, the person can still be found guilty of the offence.
    :P

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I can see both sides of the argument here. The intention is important because eventually the cthulu guy is going to realize that his summoning isn't working and will just go out and buy a gun to kill you with.

    well, we can get him when he buys the gun and brings it to church.

    that's the price we have pay for not criminalizing thoughts.

    We do, however, criminalize intentions. And while I'd agree with Mikeman that it doesn't necessarily require attempted murder, if the guy's serious I'd have no problem with him being forcibly entered into an institution.

    actually, we don't really criminalize intentions either. we criminalize actions. no intention alone, without action, can ever be criminalized. would the "summoning" satisfy the actus reas requirement? maybe in stupid world. but im confident that we don't live in stupid world.

    A man in Dallas was arrested in an FBI sting when he took what he thought to be a car full of bombs into a parking garage and tried to detonate them. Of course, since the car was provided by the FBI there were no bombs in the car, his only action was dialing a phone number.

    By your reasoning he should be let go since there's no way he could kill someone only by dialing a phone, no matter what he thought/wanted to happen.

    Or, we could be sane, and realize that someone being crazy and murderous doesn't make them less murderous.

    The key difference here is that a phone exists and could detonate a car bomb(which also exist). Where as demons don't exist, and there for he could not summon one.

    Using your standard ANY preacher who EVER calls for gods judgement to come down and smite someone, would also need to be charged with attempted murder.

    This whole discussion makes me think of LARPers. IF they really really believe they are shooting a magic missile, then they are attempting murder.
    Though if this does become a legal standard, I can think of some HILARIOUS sting operations infiltrating conservative Christian communities.

    "Okay Ezekial, are you ready to adjure Lord God to bring his wrath down upon Obama the Antichrist?"

    "You bet, Matthew!"

    "Have you cleansed your mind of sin and spoken in tongues?"

    "Alabahbahlazagaba!"

    "Okay, open the holy scriptures..."

    As Ezekial opens the Bible and begins speaking the Lord's prayer, suddenly 20 feds kick down the door with machine guns. Matthew stands, revealing a wire.

    "That was a close one!"

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    This whole discussion makes me think of LARPers. IF they really really believe they are shooting a magic missile, then they are attempting murder.
    I wouldn't mind locking them up either. It would keep everybody not mentally ill safer.

    fascism.jpg

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.
    Please explain to me how this could cause harm.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.

    why limit this to murder? what about assault and battery? drunk driving?

    i was intending to have a drink tonight, then probably go driving. i had the drink but my friends overpowered me and took the keys from me, those sons of bitches. i still got drunk as hell though. attempted drunk driving for the win, baby!

    http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/driving_or_attempting_to_drive_with_excess_alcohol.htm
    Attempting to drive can include any effort to use a vehicle regardless of whether it is successful. It is established law that when a drunk person attempted to start a car, but failed, his intention was to drive and he was therefore convicted, regardless of the fact that he could not actually get the car to move. Even if the vehicle is incapable of working, the person can still be found guilty of the offence.
    :P

    i guess the u.k. is stupid land.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/comments/i01_0009.htm
    Issue(s)
    Whether New York State law recognizes the offenses of attempted driving while intoxicated and attempted aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle.
    Disposition
    No. When it drafted the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Legislature did not contemplate the inclusion of attempt in charges of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.

    why limit this to murder? what about assault and battery? drunk driving?

    i was intending to have a drink tonight, then probably go driving. i had the drink but my friends overpowered me and took the keys from me, those sons of bitches. i still got drunk as hell though. attempted drunk driving for the win, baby!

    http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/driving_or_attempting_to_drive_with_excess_alcohol.htm
    Attempting to drive can include any effort to use a vehicle regardless of whether it is successful. It is established law that when a drunk person attempted to start a car, but failed, his intention was to drive and he was therefore convicted, regardless of the fact that he could not actually get the car to move. Even if the vehicle is incapable of working, the person can still be found guilty of the offence.
    :P

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/comments/i01_0009.htm

    Yes, laws between states and countries vary.

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.
    Please explain to me how this could cause harm.

    Well, if an actual demon showed up and started farting lighting and vomiting fire all over the place I guess you could get burned or shocked.

  • reVersereVerse Never odd or even Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.
    Please explain to me how this could cause harm.

    Well, if an actual demon showed up and started farting lighting and vomiting fire all over the place I guess you could get burned or shocked.

    And if God actually showed up to smite the sinners, they'd get smitten (smote?).

    So, praying for such things would be attempted murder.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Yes, laws between states and countries vary.

    wait a minute, is attempted suicide causing by demon summoning already outlawed in the u.k. also?

    man, you should have just said something earlier.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.
    Please explain to me how this could cause harm.
    How could in cause harm if when he intended to summon a murderous demon he actually succeeded in summoning a muderous demon?

    The murderous demon murders people. Duh.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Yes, laws between states and countries vary.

    wait a minute, is attempted suicide causing by demon summoning already outlawed in the u.k. also?

    man, you should have just said something earlier.

    Trying to cause a person to commit suicide through your actions is outlawed in the UK.

    Attempted drunk driving is considered a crime in several places, and I don't believe it is inherently absurd.

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.
    Please explain to me how this could cause harm.
    How could in cause harm if when he intended to summon a murderous demon he actually succeeded in summoning a muderous demon?

    The murderous demon murders people. Duh.
    Murderous demons don't exist and can't be summoned.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Yes, laws between states and countries vary.

    wait a minute, is attempted suicide causing by demon summoning already outlawed in the u.k. also?

    man, you should have just said something earlier.

    Why do you think we defeated the redcoats so easily?

    Also, blasphemy was illegal until a couple years ago.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.
    Please explain to me how this could cause harm.
    How could in cause harm if when he intended to summon a murderous demon he actually succeeded in summoning a muderous demon?

    The murderous demon murders people. Duh.
    Murderous demons don't exist and can't be summoned.

    Nevertheless, if the act plays out the way the intender intends, harm will come to people.

    It just won't, and can't.

    Greeper is now Minister Of Communication in my new regime.
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Yes, laws between states and countries vary.

    wait a minute, is attempted suicide causing by demon summoning already outlawed in the u.k. also?

    man, you should have just said something earlier.

    Trying to cause a person to commit suicide through your actions is outlawed in the UK.

    really? can you cite please? ive never heard of anything like that. you're not talking about duress are you? because those are conceptually different things.

    and besides, like ive said earlier, the facts of the case actually matter. trying to make you kill yourself by threating your family (duress and murder, not "suicide-causing") is different from trying to make you kill yourself by feeding you fatty foods and cigarettes.
    Attempted drunk driving is considered a crime in several places, and I don't believe it is inherently absurd.

    well, it's definitely not as absurd as attempted suicide causing demon summoning.

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    So inspired by this thread I looked up demon summoning on youtube, there are some crazy people it seems.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Looking it up, the situation would fall under inherent impossibility because it is too inadequate to kill someone, but I'm not sure if the UK recognizes it and it appears to vary from place to place. That would still mean people praying to god to kill people would still be guilty of attempted murder. The USA and UK are Christian nations after all.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.
    Please explain to me how this could cause harm.
    How could in cause harm if when he intended to summon a murderous demon he actually succeeded in summoning a muderous demon?

    The murderous demon murders people. Duh.
    Murderous demons don't exist and can't be summoned.

    So your question wasn't 'What's the harm if it happens as intended' so much as 'What's the harm if it doesn't happen as intended which it won't because he's nuts'?

    These two questions are not the same.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
    Which is fulfilled by this case.
    Please explain to me how this could cause harm.
    How could in cause harm if when he intended to summon a murderous demon he actually succeeded in summoning a muderous demon?

    The murderous demon murders people. Duh.
    Murderous demons don't exist and can't be summoned.

    So your question wasn't 'What's the harm if it happens as intended' so much as 'What's the harm if it doesn't happen as intended which it won't because he's nuts'?

    These two questions are not the same.
    The type of legal situation being invoked is different though.

    It is physically possible to construct a bomb and blow up people with it. If you buy stuff to make a bomb and fail, or are tricked into buying fake components via a sting operation, you obviously still should be prosecuted because it is within the realm of possibility of constructing a real bomb; it's a physical act that doesn't need to be filtered through theology to make any sense.

    It is not physically possible to summon a demon. It is not physically possible to get God to kill your enemies. You need to do more than ask supernatural deities for their help in accomplishing goals to be legally culpable. You have to perform actions that could actually cause harm.

Sign In or Register to comment.