quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Ok, I am done dealing with your silly logic. One cop sitting watching Gilberto would lead to an escalation in crime because he could not be out there dealing with others?? You do know that there are other cops on any given police force, and that I think even my local police, who have a whopping 10 officers, could afford to spare one on a surveillance schedule if it meant catching a criminal. But seeing as I can't even fathom the reasoning you seem to be basing your statements from, I will leave you at your word... God forbid "evil" runs rampant while we worry about actual crime. Lets get those "potential criminals" off the streets. At least until the definition of potential starts to include what, jay walkers, spitting on the street, whistling. Hell, a good prosecutor could convict a spitter of conspiracy. But hey, in your would it would never happen right?

quote:

Me, I tend to require a bit more than text ramblings or delusional fantasy fueled conversations before I start loading up the firing squad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Isn't it wonderful how those who offer no opinions of there own on the matter are the most vocal about mine? Surprisingly enough, it is also those opinions I choose to ignore, as they seem only to instigate an argument instead of generating a discussion on the subject. The only thing that people focus on in this case is connectivity. He did A, He did B, B must lead to C, so he therefore is guilty of C. There is no evidence he actually did C, but we can infer from A and B that he will do C sometime in the future. Me, I tend to require a bit more than text ramblings or delusional fantasy fueled conversations before I start loading up the firing squad

quote:

Thank you for your insightful and well thought out response... But if you can provide any links or proof that Gilberto actually engaged in Cannibalism, then what he did was fantasize about it. Pretty sure that is the textbook definition of kink.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

He was convicted of C. That is the definition of conspiracy. I even gave a clear example of that with the knife in the U.K. If you doubt it, here is a definition of conspiracy to commit:

"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence."

What that means is all they need to prove is you intended to commit at some time in the near future (talked about, texted, wrote stories, etc), had done anything to "take steps", hell buying a bus ticket anywhere near a perceived target would fit that requirement. This is significantly easier than murder. But if you can provide any facts to your statement that murder is in fact easier than the above please do

As for opinion, the second half of your statement is definitely opinion. You say clearly that you feel conspiracy is harder than murder. Notice, your entire statement is not just an argument against my opinion, hence why I responded

quote:


What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dyfrynt

Lafayette said "Everyone is giving their opinion. Their opinion is that the man is guilty as charged. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand."

LL, this has gone round and round so many times that at this point I am thinking that Darkfeather just keeps stirring the pot for the attention. He keeps coming back for more, but he hasn't said anything different for at least 5 pages.