References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 03:51:29 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 03:51:29 GMT
Billy Watt wrote:
> In news:iA8m9.60066$bX.12653@sccrnsc02, Steve rambled thus:
>> The only thing wrong with your use of this case is that it destroys
>> your argument about a conviction being required for it to be a crime.
>> It bolts out the guilt, and then describes how, before or after a
>> conviction. So you can have a crime without a conviction, otherwise
>> you could only have a pardon after the conviction.
>> Thousands of crimes occur everyday and no one is arrested. That does
>> not change the fact that a crime occurred.
>> Lets take one of your examples about Murder, and if there was
>> justification. Lets change it a little. Billy walks up and shots
>> Mary in the head. Billy is examined and found to be legally
>> incompetent to stand trial. No trial no conviction, Billy is in the
>> nut house Mary is dead. There was no justification, no
>> accident(manslaughter), no legal defenses to Murder. We don't even go
>> to the issue of Not Guilty be reason of insanity because of the
>> incompetent he never even goes to trial. Does that mean no crime. I
>> don't think so.
> This is a very nicely put arguement but I don't know anybody called
You know, "the other Billy" .