What your legal textbook says and what happens in real life are sometimes at variance. You may have noticed. However, the point is too trivial to waste any more
Look, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but your lame attempt at shrugging off such a “trivial” point here after the whole exchange above makes you look like a stupid dick who loves to do the bully-poking-someone-in-the-chest routine and then cowers and runs off when someone pummels you right back ( in the politest of terms).
First: you make an irritatingly insulting comment to Bricker implying he is so dumb that someone has to explain the term “conspiracy” to him.
He then posts a concise clarification and definition which contextually explains what the word means.
Your brilliant rejoinder is a cowering deflection of, “what exactly is the point you’re trying to make here, Counselor?” Whenever this happens (and I’ve seen it happen quite often between you and Bricker) your response typically amounts to “Drrrrr… well… well… it’s not important ANYWAY! HRMPH! And besides that, you’re a poopy head who is, um, dishonest!” Christ, you are a simpering idiot. Enough with the fucking idiotic confrontational bullying routine. You just continue to make yourself look foolish here.
This is an attempt to wave away your mistake with an largely irrelevant commentary.
Yes, sometimes real life does not match legal textbooks.
But is that true in this specific example? That is, are people routinely convicted of conspiracy when the law requires an overt act, even though all they did was plan and agree to do something illegal?
On that point, I don’t agree that real life doesn’t match legal textbooks.
As a general rule, the law does not allow a conviction when the supposed crime was “just by itself, to plan to do something illegal.” Your saying it does was wrong, as a matter of general principle, and your trying to obscure the error by tossing out the generic maxim that sometimes real life does not follow legal textbooks does not cure the error.
This board would be a better place if you, and others similarly situated, took the time to post such responses every time you see this behavior. I despair at times because the only thing I see is the parade of garbage followed by syncopation from the other idiots, praising the garbage for its correct political stance… and I fear that there’s no one reading who sees the garbage for garbage.
It must be great living in the other 49 states where the Democratic Party is a paragon of virtue and honesty. Unfortunately I live in New Jersey where the Democratic Party has been a cesspool of filth and corruption for at least the last 100 years.
Wow. You must be one old fuck.
The Counselors legalistic definition of “conspiracy” is entirely correct. I regret any inference about a poster who shines as a beacon of candor and honesty before us all.
Certainly seems that way.
Typo?
Yeah. Typo like a fox!
They don’t have a Piggly Wiggly in Tallahassee anymore. Can we do it at the Hogly Wogly instead?
Are you saying that any report of a crime being committed should be assumed a lie, because people don’t commit crimes, since crimes are punished? Because you seem to be saying that.
There was no crime committed.
I agree that if this is happening, it’s somehwat worrisome and should be investigated by the proper authorities.
I also think that before one gets too outraged, one should consider the source. Do you know who owns Election Journal?
Election Journal is owned and operated by a Republican operative named Mike Roman.
Mike Roman is the guy who alleged that Black Panthers were intimidating voters in Philadelphia in 2008. He is also a blogger at BigGovernment.com and a paid GOP consultant.
I’ve been reading this thread over several days. I get the impression there are some posters claiming that what Acorn did was indefensible and illegal, and that a republican *throwing away *democrat’s registrations is OK because it *isn’t *illegal?
Am I correct in my reading, and is it really not illegal to collect someone’s registration and then destroy it?
One Republican mouthpiece is in the thread arguing that the conspiracy crime cannot be charged until one of the conspirators actually commits the overt act; that is neither here nor there to your claim that it’s ludicrous to suspect people of doing something illegal since it’s irrational to do illegal things, which I’ve asked you to clarify.
There was nothing illegal going on.
Okely-Dokely.
AN overt act. Not THE overt act. Big difference.
When a member of the conspiracy actually does illegally prevent someone from voting, thus retroactively making the conspiracy an illegal act, will it then still be impossible for anyone to have committed a crime because committing crime is against the law?