Yea. I’m waiting for his next helpful thread:
‘Pol Pot - he only intended to get the rice harvest in quick,’ maybe.
Really? Because the “Not in California” comment by you made it seem like this kind of thing was covered by California law, but maybe not other states, as opposed to there not being enough evidence, which is a standard for every single state in the union. :shrug:
No, they wouldn’t. They would be doing it because of the facts of the case. If there is enough evidence presented to show he hid priests from investigators, or told them to cover up the abuse, or other actions that would constitute an offense, then the jury would be inferring his intent from those actions, not from “he’s a bad guy”. The judge wouldn’t even be letting in character evidence that he was a bad guy (unless the Cardinal opened the door), so it would be based on the actual evidence of his actions, not this handwaving bad guy stuff.
Nice try counselor. I am impressed at your attempt to once again sidestep the actual issue and vague it up nicely with smoke and mirrors. I can see how you were good at your job.
Of course convicting people for something they didn’t do is wrong and dangerous. But that has nothing to do with your assertion that somehow evidence that a Cardinal covered up sexual abuse doesn’t allow a jury to infer his intent to hide the crime.
Again, if the evidence exists and was presented that the Cardinal took positive actions to hide the priests from investigators or otherwise covered up the abuse, it is perfectly acceptable, and quite likely, for the jury to infer he intended to hinder the arrest or prosecution of those priests. The fact his motive was to protect the Church does nothing, contrary to your earlier assertion, to negate that specific intent
Hey!
All jackasses are lawyers but not all lawyers are jackasses. 
Wow, you’re really good at these games.
It is trivially easy for reasonable people to look at Mahoney’s actions and words and decide that his intent was to conceal the crimes of rapist-priests and help them evade arrest as the mechanism to protect the church. We can base denunciations of this prince of the church based on his actions to hide rapist-priests and his inactions in preventing further rapes.
It’s a shame he didn’t give ‘coming clean immediately and handing the rapists over to the justice system’ approach to ‘protecting the good name of the Church’.
Crazy idea, I know. Especially considering how great Plan A turned out to be.
And if my memory of previous threads like this go this is the point Bricker tries to argue that; this being Bizzaro World and all; the RCC mumbo jumbo of canon law etc somehow takes precedence over national law or common decency.
And no - Bricker isn’t good at these games. He’s like the Wizard of Oz without even a curtain. He really does think we’re just idiots and rubes who’ll be dazzled by his smoke and mirror hand-waving.
No – just that I had occasion to look at the caselaw for accessory after in California and not in every other state. Maybe other states have differing presumptions applicable. Don’t know, didn’t want to get hung by someone gleefully pointing out error.
The mere fact that he was associated with molesting and didn’t affimatively report it would be enough to establish his bad guy bona fides with the jury.
Which would be fine with you, I guess.
Do you believe that his motive has to help the priests evade capture? Or to protect the Church? Do you imagine that if he could have waved a wand and had the priests locked up without a hint of scandal touching the Church, he would have done so, or continued to protect them?
Sure, Bricker. Sure.
I would have loved to see you argue this as a defense attorney in a real case. “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you can’t convict the defendant of this murder simply because all the evidence shows that he did it, because the same evidence shows he’s a bad guy, and you can’t convict him just because he’s a bad guy. Ergo, you can’t convict.”
Am I OK with the jury concluding a person intended the consequences of his actions based on inferences raised from those actions. Yes. Yes I am. And so is the entire criminal justice system.
To the Socraticmobile!!!
I’m not playing your games. If there is evidence that the Cardinal committed the offense, the fact that one of his motives was to protect the Church does absolutely nothing to hinder a jury from finding he also had the specific intent that the priests not be arrested or prosecuted. Just like if the wife wanted to cover up her husband committing murder because she had the motive of wanting him around does nothing to negate her specific intent that he not be arrested.
Motive doesn’t matter except insofar that at best protecting the church was his motive for committing the crimes. It proves his intent to commit the crime. He aided and abetted felons to conceal their crimes. In doing so he aided and abetted them in continuing their crimes. He continued to do this for years. He conspired with others to do all of this.
Not wanting the Church to look bad is no more an exculpation than me shooting a witness in the face because i don’t want to go to jail.
I’m having a hard time imagining why this would not be described as having the motive to help the priests evade capture to further the goal of protecting the church.
It seems obvious to me that he has intent both with regards to helping the priests evade capture and to protect the church. I can’t see how the fact that he would do things differently if he could means that he did not have intent to protect the priests. He looked at his options, determined that the best/only way to protect the church was to help the priests evade capture and took steps to ensure that such happened.
It seems to me that his intent is clear and is not dependent on a previously held position of “he’s a very bad man”.
exactly right. I’m surprised someone claiming to be an attorney, especially with a background in criminal law, would be so blind to the difference between motive and intent. As I recall, however, he stopped practicing law a few years back and may be a little rusty.
Really? You’re taking the position that juries would always convict anyone they’re convinced is a “bad guy”, even if they don’t believe the case was proven? My, you certainly hold the unwashed masses in contempt, don’t you. It’s a damn shame we don’t leave governing and the rule of law to our betters.
His motive was to do both, I believe. As to whether he would have made them just disappear if he could have managed it, I think that if he and others in his position really wanted the problem to die down they wouldn’t have continued to transfer those priests to other churches where they could continue to molest children. If they were just trying to protect the Church they could have just transferred them to assignments where they had no contact with children. That in itself would be a cover-up, but these priests were knowingly transferred to other parishes that had children. I would call that aiding and abetting, but I’m not a lawyer
What is the church he wanted to protect? Was it the children falling victims to these rapists? How does leaving the rapists to find more victims protect the church unless Mahoney doesn’t see the victims as part of the church?
And let us not forget the RCC’s ignominious record of ‘transferring’ Nazi War Criminals to South America where they continued to aid and abet fascism. Mahoney and all the others aiding and abetting child molesters around the world for decades were just following the RCC’s standard operating procedure.
He didn’t. Him and the rest of the heirarchy see the Church purely as ‘them and their other mates in funny costumes’. The rest of the ‘flock’ are just sheep to be fleeced and lambs to be buggered.
And people like Bricker are just ‘useful idiots’.
Bricker, at any time during Mahoney’s life as a catholic priest (bishop, cardinal), was he ever under any sort of obligation (in any commonly accepted meaning of the word) to prevent other priests from raping children?
Hey! :mad:
I like this bit from Mahoney’s next post.
How to be Super-Awesomely Humble (to paraphrase slightly)
Jesus? The guy who told the parable of The Good Samaritan? That Jesus? You sure you didn’t lose him at the last turn? You do know there were more words after ‘Suffer the little children’ right? The Bible didn’t just stop there.