Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Sladek who wrote (4147)	1/28/2003 12:09:21 PM
From: Babe' Boua	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

John… you wouldn't expect me to use the women's rea in public, now would you? What kind of bars ROTF….. do you 'hang out' in anyway? One the serious side…. do you generally seek advisement from patrons in bars for opinions regarding legal concerns of urgent importance? Did your drunken "fellow colleagues" also advice you to honor this poster's request by stating one-way or the other, the legal relationship (if any) you formerly and/or presently have with SI: member/alias Win-Lose-Draw? And I bet this little scenario you painted regarding your experience yesterday with your "fellow colleagues" was quite comforting to Win-Lose-Draw in a "criminal mode" kinda way.....(LOL) "Why just yesterday I took the opportunity to share a couple of your postings with some of my colleagues at the bar. They were, to a man, amazed that you could possibly think that WLD's statements had anything to do with mens rea." For someone who has expressed his wishes to have this issue put to rest…. you certainly are having a difficult time letting it go! You have placed a tremendous amount your time and effort into this "in criminal mode" statement made by Win-Lose-Draw. So what's the connection here, John? Are you or are you not, legally representing SI member/alias Win-Draw-Lose as his attorney? ~TIA~ babe:))

To: John Sladek who wrote (4147)	1/28/2003 12:37:54 PM
From: Babe' Boua	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

John.... I thought you might like to share this 'simplistic' definition of mens rea with your fellow "colleagues" for their input this evening, at the bar..... Mens Rae - Definition: "The concept of mens rea refers in law to the question of a mental act in a criminal case. According to the traditional principle, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "an act does not make a man guilty unless the mind is guilty. In other words, without the existence of a guilty intention, a person should not be found guilty of committing some crime - accidental acts are not to be regarded as criminal. Although this seems reasonable, there are problems with it. How, for example, are we to treat people who commit crimes out of negligence, for example failing to stop at a stop sign because they did not see it? They are often given a fine and held responsible for that negligence, which would seem to violate the above principle. The question of intention is also often problematic. People are generally held responsible for an act which they did not intent so long as the consequences were foreseeable. Thus, a person who shoots a gun into a crowd can be found guilty of murder even though they can argue that they did not intend to kill anyone because the results, someone's death, were readily forseeable." == babe:))