Thanks, Rmat. Also, I find it extremely funny (ironic, even) that nano flailed into me over a mistake in grammar and then posts “out their.”
My implication above is to the fact that California’s courts go by the written law, not some supposed superiority of an unwritten code of common law.
Rmat:
I certainly know that malice can be either express or implied. This is covered in CA Penal Code 188, which says:
All that just has to do with proving a subjective “fact” in any given case; once either type of malice is “proven”, which type has no bearing on the categorization of the type of crime being, or having been adjudicated, or codewise-explicitly on any penalties to be, or having been, imposed upon conviction. Thus that distinction does not bear on the issues we have discussed here.
What are your qualifications that make your impudnet, extremely limitedly contentful posts overriding on what I have posted here?
I’m going to correct, using HTML instead of UBB for the linking of the long URLs, the text of my prior two extensive posts, and repost them in yet another thread, in order to correct the lack of wrapping here.
Ray
Monty:
You too mutually admiring characters seem to post what ads up to next to zilch.
I apologize for the “out their”. But can you really convince yourself of what you say in this sentence:
My mistake here was merely one of those annoying homonymic typos, of course, which couldn’t possibly have caused you any difficulty in understanding what I was saying in the sentence in which it was used.
OTOH, although, I think I got the gist of what you were trying to get across in your outrageously complex and definitely incomplete sentence (and which your addition thereto still still did not complete),
certainly that mess-up of your greatly disrupted your communication to me and to anyone else here (most of whom no doubt gave up on the reading of it).
That is a gross falsehood going back to include 150 yr. of CA.US jurisprudence. If you believe that, just state – on the one point I raised in respect to what we were
discussing, i.e., the Provocative-Act Murder Doctrine – what code supports this doctrine (which wouldn’t be called a ‘doctrine’/‘rule’/‘theory’ if it were codified as a statute). CA Penal Codes 187-189 do not support this theory, as you tried to claim. And in general, CA.US legal judgments are based on unwritten common more-or-less-English law in any instances where no CA.US or US statute covers the particular issue (or possibly an especially pertinent CA, UK, AU, etc. law). Ask any lawyer or judge.
I think it’s about time to ignore your and Rmat’s contentless, unbacked-up denials and directives., but I’m going to clean up my two extensive posts and repost them in a new thread where they’ll wrap right, in case someone else wants to comment. I can’t legitimately repost the posts of you two, but you two are, of course welcome to do so in the new thread.
Ray
Monty:
You too mutually admiring characters seem to post what ads up to next to zilch. I apologize for the “out their”. But can you really convince yourself of what you say in this sentence:
My mistake here was merely one of those annoying homonymic typos, of course, which couldn’t possibly have caused you any difficulty in understanding what I was saying in the sentence in which it was used.
OTOH, although, I think I got the gist of what you were trying to get across in your outrageously complex and definitely incomplete sentence (and which your addition thereto still still did not complete), certainly that mess-up of your greatly disrupted your communication to me and to anyone else here (most of whom no doubt gave up on the reading of it).
That is a gross falsehood going back to include 150 yr. of CA.US jurisprudence. If you believe that, just state – on the one point I raised in respect to what we were discussing, i.e., the Provocative-Act Murder Doctrine – what code supports this doctrine (which wouldn’t be called a ‘doctrine’/‘rule’/‘theory’ if it were codified as a statute). CA Penal Codes 187-189 do not support this theory, as you tried to claim. And in general, CA.US legal judgments are based on unwritten common more-or-less-English law in any instances where no CA.US or US statute covers the particular issue (or possibly an especially pertinent CA, UK, AU, etc. law). Ask any lawyer or judge.
I think it’s about time to ignore your and Rmat’s contentless, unbacked-up denials and directives., but I’m going to clean up my two extensive posts and repost them in a new thread where they’ll wrap right, in case someone else wants to comment. I can’t legitimately repost the posts of you two, but you two are, of course welcome to do so in the new thread.
Ray
So I’m reposting the last four of my above posts (which are hard to read, due to their line lengths) here.
Ray
Well, there’s no doubt about Nano’s stance on censorship now.
Nano: on what planet do you reside? The police officer can not know in advance what any one other person will do until that person actually does it.
P.S. Any police department which did not pursue a killer would be in for a lot more turmoil than what you’ve described so far, Nano.
Another thing is that your OP in the OT was decidedly prejudiced against the police in general, as was your asinine comment above, to wit: “they all say that.”
Honestly, Nano, you need to chill. You’re getting hysterical, and that can’t be good for your health. How can my post be at once “contentless” and yet “override what [you] have said”? You see, you’re making no sense. Again. Your earlier posts uniformly betrayed no understanding of the distinction between implied and express malice. I simply pointed that out. You now reply by (1) confirming that my observation about the distinction is correct, (2) claiming that you knew it all along, and (3) denying that this distinction has any relevance to a discussion that you initiated and pursued on the patently erroneous assumption that there is no such thing as implied malice. You argue like a child. As for my qualifications, I, without knowing yours, am confident that they exceed your own. I would gladly disclose them if I thought doing so could somehow advance this dialogue. That seems unlikely. But I’ll make you a deal: I’ll send you my resume if I ever make a demonstrably incorrect statement about the law of homicide. So far, as you must acknowledge, that has not occurred.
What I wanna know is why NB is so hot for this topic. Its obvious from his own data that police don’t seek out opportunities to hurt innocent people and the people who get hurt are mostly the fleeing. What was it NB that got your panties in such a twist? Or are you just one of those people who aren’t happy unless they’re miserable?