Nope -- unless it evolves into either an actual conspiracy or solicitation, but the requirements there are very specific. Discussing the ways in which the law can be broken is not against the law.Originally Posted by Vernad
Nope -- unless it evolves into either an actual conspiracy or solicitation, but the requirements there are very specific. Discussing the ways in which the law can be broken is not against the law.
Tout dit dans l'infini quelque chose a quelqu'un. (Victor Hugo)
http://www.epinions.com/user-verbatima
The statement above is very disputable. :roll:
__
Oh yeah? With what? You have facts to back up your disputations? What's the name of the offense implicit in discussing ways to commit a crime -- what title does it fit under? Can you point to any instances when anyone was charged, much less convicted, for something like that?
Tout dit dans l'infini quelque chose a quelqu'un. (Victor Hugo)
http://www.epinions.com/user-verbatima
Oh yeah? With what? You have facts to back up your disputations?
Да, у меня есть факты.
1. Переодетая "под проститyтку" полицейская договаривается с "клиентом". Никаких "развратных" действий пока нет. Только обсуждение. Они договариваются о цене. "Клиент" арестовывается.
2. Переодетый под наёмного убийцу полицейский договаривается с "клиентом". Никаких действий пока нет. Только обсуждение. Они договариваются о цене. "Клиент" арестовывается.
_______
Возвращаясь ка предмету разговора..
Жених конечно рескует сильно т.к. реч должна идти о порядочности невесты в данной сетуации...Мужчины всегда финансово пострадавшая сторона от развода... А аппетит приходит ,как известно, во время еды....Оформлять брак за рубежом Америки нельзя.....потому что на визу может уйти до года..
More info:
http://www.2000latinladies.com/visa/abroad.shtml
Ну и где же в этом треде кто-либо договаривался об оформлении фиктивного брака? Обсуждать гипотетическое преступление или знакомых которые якобы такое преступление совершили -- это закона не нарушает. Not a single element of conspiracy is satisfied here (thank you, Bar Bri Bar Review).
Кроме того, ваши примеры тоже не обязательно удовлетворяют требования закона относительно преступной договоренности. Смотря кто с кем начинает договариваться -- это может быть и entrapment.
Tout dit dans l'infini quelque chose a quelqu'un. (Victor Hugo)
http://www.epinions.com/user-verbatima
Ну и где же в этом треде кто-либо договаривался об оформлении фиктивного брака?
Wait a second... :D
Are you following the discussion ? :D
I have just showed your all-can-be-discussed point to be false.
Not all can be discussed freely, madam :D
And I have not even mentioned “Miranda Law” yet. :D
Remember?
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
________
I said:
(See previous page) I mentioned before you did both conspiracy and solicitation -- but it is also a fact that neither conspiracy nor solicitation took place in this thread. Any way you look at it, your assertion that it is against the law to discuss ways of committing a crime is absolutely bogus.
Yeah, I remember -- but you don't, apparently. Man, you are one confused individual. First of all, it's not "Miranda Law", but "Miranda Rule" -- and there is a big difference. Second, the Miranda Rule refers to the Fifth-Amendment right against self-incrimination, and stipulates that every criminal suspect must be advised of this right.
Now, let's look at the language closely, shall we. The fact that words can be "used" against a person in a criminal proceeding as evidence does not mean that the words themselves constitute a crime. For example, if you say "I once told my friend, wouldn't it be nice to shoot John Smith and get away with it", that statement can be used as evidence that you in fact are the one who shot John Smith, which is a crime; but one does not commit a crime by saying "wouldn't it be nice to shoot John Smith and get away with it". That's what the Miranda Rule means -- madam -- it merely grants a suspect the right not to give the police evidence of his guilt; but it does not criminalize speech.
I strongly suggest you review both the First and the Fifth Amendment, as well as the difference between evidence and actus reus. Your grasp of those jewels of jurisprudence is woefully feeble. :wink:
Tout dit dans l'infini quelque chose a quelqu'un. (Victor Hugo)
http://www.epinions.com/user-verbatima
I said:
(See previous page) I mentioned before you did both conspiracy and solicitation -- but it is also a fact that neither conspiracy nor solicitation took place in this thread. Any way you look at it, your assertion that it is against the law to discuss ways of committing a crime is absolutely bogus.
Yeah, I remember -- but you don't, apparently. Man, you are one confused individual. First of all, it's not "Miranda Law", but "Miranda Rule" -- and there is a big difference. Second, the Miranda Rule refers to the Fifth-Amendment right against self-incrimination, and stipulates that every criminal suspect must be advised of this right.
Now, let's look at the language closely, shall we. The fact that words can be "used" against a person in a criminal proceeding as evidence does not mean that the words themselves constitute a crime. For example, if you say "I once told my friend, wouldn't it be nice to shoot John Smith and get away with it", that statement can be used as evidence that you in fact are the one who shot John Smith, which is a crime; but one does not commit a crime by saying "wouldn't it be nice to shoot John Smith and get away with it". That's what the Miranda Rule means -- madam -- it merely grants a suspect the right not to give the police evidence of his guilt; but it does not criminalize speech.
I strongly suggest you review both the First and the Fifth Amendment, as well as the difference between evidence and actus reus. Your grasp of those jewels of jurisprudence is woefully feeble. :wink:
Well, first, madam, I am not confused. :D
"Miranda Law" it is. Though sometimes it is referred as "Miranda rule"
Second, the whole your "logistics" above :D is strengthening my point that NOT EVERYTHING can be discussed. :D
Because if tomorrow Miss Natasik will commit a crime then YOU will be held responsible for giving her illegal advice and I will be the star-witness. :D
________
Bullsh*t. You have absolutely no understanding of the Miranda Rule -- as I am sure you have not read the source. (I am certain you don't know what "Miranda" even refers to.) Your comment is a very vivid illustration that you don't, in fact, understand the difference between evidence and actus reus (which, as a practical matter, means that you would be weeded out in the very first semester of law school).
Moreover -- would you please cite the words spoken in this thread which, you believe, violate the law, and explain in what way they violate it. In addition, please cite the "illegal advice" that you claim I gave here.
"Star witness", my arse. A "witness" to what? More like a star doodle.
Tout dit dans l'infini quelque chose a quelqu'un. (Victor Hugo)
http://www.epinions.com/user-verbatima
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
|
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy |
 
|
