|
Post by insomniac on Apr 10, 2010 14:04:32 GMT -5
Good because you were owned.
|
|
bato2
Moderator
Art Changed The World
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bato2 on Apr 10, 2010 14:56:35 GMT -5
Orthodoxy is part of my national and ethnic identity
That what you were told to be from your parents, you didn't had a choice on that. You are another brick in the wall dude
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Apr 10, 2010 15:13:39 GMT -5
Good because you were owned. oh well I would know if that was the case...you cant even imagine in how many points she is wrong...^^
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Apr 10, 2010 15:29:00 GMT -5
i think she hit the nail and you failed at trying to act a smartass.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 10, 2010 16:27:17 GMT -5
Excuse me? wrong?
Not according to the British legal system. Not according to many US states, not according to Australian legislation and so on and so forth.
Prove that I am wrong using global legislations and references.
|
|
PARIS DIO_MYSUS!
Amicus
It's Nice to be Important but It's more Important to be Nice!
Posts: 3,681
|
Post by PARIS DIO_MYSUS! on Apr 10, 2010 18:01:41 GMT -5
Hey O Milet, There in Albania is tradition that when little baby die people should not talk and not crying. So shut up and no more comments.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 10, 2010 18:58:25 GMT -5
The best u can do is smite me.. wooh yea. Il give u a day or 2 to disprove what I said.
|
|
|
Post by mendor on Apr 11, 2010 1:16:20 GMT -5
People is angery because of the racistic actions of the laste days in Athens and Yanina..That was barbaric but let not judge all greeks like that because im sure that even our patriot greek members here are shocked about what happen...i belive that could hapen everywhere even in Albania.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Apr 11, 2010 5:53:46 GMT -5
lol I didnt smite you Turk....but you surely deserved it whoever it was. Why? Because you are the one who wanted to act like a smartass. You people here must somehow be blood related to each other...at least you and insomniac...so much imbecility...you are all not able to understand what Im writing here...I bet you are reading just two lines of my posts.....and then you make your own (unfortunately not intelligent or just repititive) conclusions. I never said that you go unpunished when you kill an unborn child. Thats nowhere the case. My quotation from the 9th April Because I said you are also wrong in many of your points (which is generally isnt fatal because you do not study law...but on the other hand it shall show you how careful you must be with your word choice in this field)...a crime can usually not be committed willingly...involuntary manslaughter is not classified as a crime according to the law. Perhaps in America such argumentation does work...seems you picked it up from some law-serial...but here in germany "hypothetical causality" stays unconsidered. Staturily it is the same if you kill a supposed healthy or even critically ill person... Kudos to mendor! tell that to people like albq or dijedon...who do only have a good command of the victim's role...but whenever some "albanian crimes" are committed....they turn to their lawyers...no matter how bad the crime was...and then they complain if the other side does the same...poor minds...
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Apr 11, 2010 7:19:03 GMT -5
You dont understand...regarding the question if the unborn child is a person or not I refered to the legal situation...I wasnt about to have a philosophic discussion about it with you. Open your eyes...I thought albanians have eyes of an eagle...as it seems this doesnt go for you... this is also why I say most probably. From my subjective view this all doesnt look like a murder. But the judge will have the final say. It doesnt matter what I or you think. Dont get me wrong...you opened a biased topic from the very beginning...with the intention to badmouth the Greeks...you can do it...but then you must also be able to take it when you dish it out...and I was even not impertinent. Im no brute. I just said we mustnt prejudge anyone as long as his guilt hasnt been determined by the court...thats the way it works in constitutional states. Perhaps in Albania it works differently I dont know but Greece is not Albania. Now if you have a problem with the way Im estimating the whole incident....then I tell you I have a problem with your disposition here, too.. Donnie and Desire are quite right. Also, are you familiar with Albanian law? In America, the murder of a pregnant woman counts as double homicide. If it didn't, one could for instance perform illegal abortions by beating the woman in the exposed area and be charged with grave assault only--thus the father of the unborn child could get away easily. Donnie makes a perfect point when he argues that the fetus was meant to be born and become a person--and intention has a purpose in this case and must be considered. Donnie was not being emotional in his argument. I find it bizarre that each time someone responds to you in a determined tone, you insist on trying to discredit their argument by claiming emotional bias. If the assaulter hit the pregant without realizing she was pregnant, you may have a case, but I realize this is not the case since she was in her 9th month.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Apr 11, 2010 8:02:09 GMT -5
anittas get lost...Im not gonna discuss with you...you are just another clueless who just thinks otherwise...
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 11, 2010 9:00:37 GMT -5
Kiro Kasto You are mistaken even in your own words.
Involuntary manslaughter occurs through negligence or recklessness. whereas non can be applied to the case where the assailants were within a clear intent to enforce pain and grevious damage to the defendents.
I spoke about manslaughter not involuntary manslaughter.
If Manslaughter can be applied to the unborn fetus, then an entity exists against which a crime has been commited. manslaughter can only be applied against persons, not establishments.
I am not talking about involuntary manslaughter, I am talking about manslaughter. It is the job of the defendent to prove without any reasonable doubt that the assailant intended to harm that unborn baby. In this case it will be confirmed as manslaughter, or under UK law as child destruction both a crime. AGAINST persons.
You are not aware of global legislation on the issue: here are some to keep you educated :
Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include "an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability" as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.
Alaska: Alaska Statutes 11.41 (as amended by Senate Bill 20, enacted June 16, 2006) establishes the crimes of "murder of an unborn child," "manslaughter of an unborn child," "criminally negligent homicide of an unborn child," and "assault of an unborn child." Alaska Statutes 11.81.900(b) defines "unborn child" as "a member of species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
If you want to learn more research yourself.
Now again here's a little suprise for you, you obviously didn't study criminal law, whereas I did - for 4 years. I know about the british legal system in a sufficient enough way, although my speciality is business law. My sister is studying global law in university 3 of my cousins are lawyers- graduated from the best law schools in the UK. One of my bestfriends is a criminal lawyer in the UK.
You are most probably a 1st year contract law student. Perhaps land law, you d o not have enough knowledge on this issue to debate with me here.
Now drink your milk and take a nap little boy
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 11, 2010 9:07:06 GMT -5
british law: With regard to manslaughter, all that was needed, once causation was established, was an act creating a risk to anyone. In a case such as the present, therefore, responsibility for manslaughter would automatically be established, once causation had been shown, simply by proving a violent attack even if the attacker had had no idea that the woman was pregnant.
UNDERSTAND
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 11, 2010 9:17:57 GMT -5
YET YOU CAN BE CHARGED FOR 3 MURDERS AND ONE MANSLAUGHTER?
so who is the manslaughter against if 4 persons were not attacked.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Apr 11, 2010 9:26:33 GMT -5
anittas get lost...Im not gonna discuss with you...you are just another clueless who just thinks otherwise... You tell me to go lost and say I'm clueless; you've called others who contradicted your opinion for imbeciles and you claim they are emotionally attached--yet these people argued with sources and in a very composed way. They didn't lose their temper and they didn't call you names--they are not insecure in their argument to ask you to "go lost". Maybe you should learn from them.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 11, 2010 9:49:06 GMT -5
He is the emotional one, he reflects his fear of being wrong upon us and thinks that by calling names, somehow he becomes right. Whereas anyone with logic can see that he is incorrect in many of the discussions he takes part in.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Apr 11, 2010 9:59:31 GMT -5
Im studying law for over three years now....what are you telling me piggy...and I know Im good in what Im doing. you said now tell me how else than neglegigently unwilling manslaughter can happen...dolus eventualis disregarded. Thanks for agreeing with me...unnoticed though. These legislations are "legal additions"....and at that pretty new ones. You must see that as someone who has studied 4 years. These decisions are pretty interesting and prove a development of the legal situation in this field. Its a pretty new rule to say we equate an unborn child with a born human...yet you are not able to recognize the historic nature of that decision. Means not all countries handle it this way (yet?), which does not mean that killing an unborn child means to go unpunished in those countries. Those decisions have an ethical, moral smack....I think that happened intentionally. this all seems to make you think you are the best...but someone who does not master the fundamentals of law...and you do not...is no good jurist. Im pretty much stunned...for someone who studied english law you are giving a pretty poor impression to me. In Germany...the law studies are in average 7,5 years long...in Britain only 4 as it seems...now go figure who "produces" better jurisprudents...in contrast to you we learn to understand what we are stuydying...the whole law system...and how it works...spirit and purpose of the law..history of law...theory...philosophy....not simple memorizing as it is in most countries.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 11, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5
Yes the Actus reaus remains in place. THEREFORE crime has been committed. EG.. u said it isn't a crime, as the baby is not a person. Yet as you can see there are many statutes and legislations that clairfy this for u Now when i said: the actus reas remains in place does it not? therefore a crime has been committed whether willingly or not It was to prove the point of a CRIME being committed. It wasn't to decide is it negligent or not, btw u seem to have a problem with understanding negligency in criminal cases. Please study upon this before you propose to debate it with me. Legal additions are called LAW. In a system which continually renews itself, especially in a case law system such as Britian, this is nothing to be shocked at! amendmants are a natural part of the process of law. They clearly contradict your view that crimes cannot be committed against unborn infants. Due to this discussion you have learnt something new well done. Actually law studies in the UK are not 4 years LOL I studied for 4 years, as an addition to my Degree. Also I studied 2 years in college, perhaps you should check which legal system is the oldest and one of the best in the world huh? before you try to talk to me about German law. We are also taught the legal system from its basis of existance to the present day, we do not just memorise. Now say thank you and go learn more about law advancements, which is one of the most important points in law, to know the new developments, obviously something you are lacking. thanks see ya
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Apr 11, 2010 11:07:22 GMT -5
Stupid...but funny. The actus reus may be fulfilled but (at least thats what I have learned) in order to commit a "crime" (according to the definition of it by law) also the subjective element (mens rea) must be fulfilled. Thus if you kill someone unwillingly...neglegigently...you have not committed a crime according to the law because the term "crime" is pegged to the minimum penalty and neglegigently committed acts do not reach this minimum here...even neglegigent manslaughter doesnt. Its interesting though (if I can rely on what you say) that the English law does have different regulations. The unborn child being a person or not does not affect the criminal law because the term "person" is only important for the civil right. Regarding criminal law the term "human" is essential. And I say it again...and I hope you will understand it finally. Many countries (and most probably all countries in past) do not classify unborn children as "humans" in regards of the criminal law...the reason for that is that unborn life is regarded to be less worthy of protection than born life. But we can see...in some countries and tstaes(Alaska, Alabama) a change has recently taken place in this field. Thats a precious information... I dont want to underestimate your law...but in continental Europe we are making fun of your law...with your common law system...and all that stuff. Also...in Britain you can work as a lawyer without having studied law....sth that is totally impossible here. You have a pretty strange system out there..but ok..if it works... German law is a crown jewel. Especially our civil law which is extremely complicated but has been model to countless other countries of this world. While...tell me one country outside the common wealth which adopted your common law...no one does. ever wondered why? The age is no argument...German law is based in many aspects on Roman law.....and the same goes for yours as I know....so the "age" is a very relative argument here.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 11, 2010 11:31:51 GMT -5
Stupid...but funny. The actus reus may be fulfilled but (at least thats what I have learned) in order to commit a "crime" (according to the definition of it by law) also the subjective element (mens rea) must be fulfilled. Thus if you kill someone unwillingly...neglegigently...you have not committed a crime according to the law because the term "crime" is pegged to the minimum penalty and neglegigently committed acts do not reach this minimum here...even neglegigent manslaughter doesnt. Its interesting though (if I can rely on what you say) that the English law does have different regulations. The unborn child being a person or not does not affect the criminal law because the term "person" is only important for the civil right. Regarding criminal law the term "human" is essential. And I say it again...and I hope you will understand it finally. Many countries (and most probably all countries in past) do not classify unborn children as "humans" in regards of the criminal law...the reason for that is that unborn life is regarded to be less worthy of protection than born life. But we can see...in some countries and tstaes(Alaska, Alabama) a change has recently taken place in this field. Thats a precious information... I dont want to underestimate your law...but in continental Europe we are making fun of your law...with your common law system...and all that stuff. Also...in Britain you can work as a lawyer without having studied law....sth that is totally impossible here. You have a pretty strange system out there..but ok..if it works... German law is a crown jewel. Especially our civil law which is extremely complicated but has been model to countless other countries of this world. While...tell me one country outside the common wealth which adopted your common law...no one does. ever wondered why? The age is no argument...German law is based in many aspects on Roman law.....and the same goes for yours as I know....so the "age" is a very relative argument here. For the crime of Murder - both actus reus and mens rea must be present. For other crimes mens rea does not need to be present. Look here Il make it easy for u. If u are speeding on a road with a 30mph limit your intention (mens rea) may not be to harm anyone or break the law, but the action means u did it. U committed the crime. engaging in a prohibited act is automatically a crime, except for circumstances which can be defended by duress So now smartypants.... is mens rea needed to prove a crime? You said please answer thanks
|
|