I said "the definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear". It's not at the time of conviction, it's at the time when the act adjudged to be criminal occurred.

Or are you confusing when a crime has been comitted with if a crime has been comitted? The if question is settled by the operation of the legal system

Well, this is not "pretty clear", but it moves the conversation along.

I'm sorry you're confused. Naturally, the answer to the question of "if" must precede the answer to the question of "when". That answer may be obvious, but often it is not. The answer may also render moot the question of "when". Is that clearer for you?
Ok, these simplifications are ... somewhat helpful. Let me recast my remarks, which you selectively answered. When an "act" happens is pretty clear. When it is adjudged to criminal, what happens to that act? What happens to that "act" if the decision is otherwise? It's clear that the act doesn't change, but our decision as to it's legality is a separate process that happens later. This difference is at the heart of our system of due process. It is the manifestation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this matter. Especially concerning the part of the conversation that prompted me to jump in.

This section:
is what I was responding to when I tried to give my understanding of each side's thoughts. I would like to hear your answer to 9th's proposition.

Were Ken Lay's actions re: Enron criminal?

I think there is a difference between threatening bodily harm and threats of other potentially criminal activities.

If Joe Shmoe threatens to blow my head off, he has already committed the crime of assault. If he has a gun at the time of the threat, it is assault with a deadly weapon.

The law allows a person to defend themselves if their life is threatened. The threat must be immediate and believable in order to use deadly force as a defense. Some states require a person to actually attempt a retreat before they can become aggressive in this defense, but others say the threat itself is enough. IE: If Joe Shmoe has a water gun and is squirting me with it, telling me he's going to send me to my next life, I would be unable to justify (in court) the use of a real gun to shoot HIM with because the threat was not believable. Or lets say Joe Shmoe tells me he is going to blow my head off during a bar brawl. If I go home, sleep it off, then go buy a gun and go shoot Joe Shmoe a day or two later, this won't fly because the threat was not immediate.

However, if Joe Shmoe threatens to steal all my money, it is just a threat. If I were a wise person, I would take steps to ensure my money was safe but unless he actually snatches my money away, he hasn't committed a crime.

The definition of what is and when a crime occurs varies depending on the crime itself. The Supreme court (state and/or federal) decides how to apply these definitions in cases where there is a dispute.

Stormie

copycat. ;)

No, I was rephrasing it to avoid the semantic trap of "if, when."

Nothing semantic about that. Just a matter of proper usage.

As for Mr. Lay...he got busted, he's been convicted, his appeals aren't exhausted. Things are looking pretty good for him ending up a convict.

If you're asking if I would have voted to convict were I on the jury (I was almost on a jury today, by the way...they turned out not to need me), I couldn't say, since I didn't spend umpty-leven days listening to the evidence.

BigV...what exactly was it that 9th was saying that you're interested in? I seem to recall that he was doing the "preemptive use of force" riff with Bruce. {L/l}ibertarians (especially the big-L variety) are very fond of the "non-initiation of violence" dealie...and it *is* a conforting shibboleth.

Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm. I'm comfortable with the justification statue here in the Commonwealth and don't beleive it restricts my options unreasonably. My Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence", but people's eyes usually glaze over when she tries to lay it down.

Perhaps I read it wrong... for reasons I have gone into in another thread, I am not "myself" right now... but, it seems that you advocate a wait-and-see approach when informed that you are going to be harmed.
I don't believe that one has the right to do that when others count on them.

First off, Ken Lay died, and any appeals he has remaining must be plead in a much higher court. Based on this:
I wanted to know your opinion as to the "crime-ness" of what happened. I wasn't trying to trick you, only to expand on the focus on the word "crime". 9th started it in response to rkz, and your picked it up in my post.

This:is pretty clear.

This may be clearer still, and more useful. I don't know, and I'm all out of eye glaze. Honestly, I believe the same way. Reasonable people could easily differ as to what circumstances would constitute that belief. I have never been faced with those circumstances. I'm glad for my good fortune.

I'm believe in self defense, of course. And I'm not really interested in mincing words with you or anyone else as to the :rollseyes: difference between crime conviction intention violence etc etc. I was trying to understand you. And rkzenrage, too. Understand more thoroughly than just knowing the definitions of the words displayed. That takes more effort, and is almost always worth it.

The words are important, too; don't get me wrong. But understanding the words without understanding the meaning is like seeing and smelling a delicious meal you may not taste. It does not nourish or satisfy.

Fair enough. Thanks. And you're right--I do have a deep and wide wait and see streak. I've been informed of an intent to harm before, and the bark has always exceeded the bite. I have moderated my responses accordingly.

Proper usage?

Of cat skinning, the ways are many.

BigV has already pointed out that Mr. Lay (by faking his death, he's living on a compund with Jim Morrison and a few others, possibly Ayn Rand) has neatly avoided having any guilt associated with his name...

And "progressive " progress marches on

Damn...I forgot completely that he died shortly after being convicted.

He was convicted, and as you point out, if the abatement isn't pursued, the conviction will stand.

Exactly what "crime-ness" might mean I do not know. Behavior is recognized as criminal or not through the operation of the criminal justice system.
Failing to understand meaning utterly precludes understanding words; they do not stand alone; they are signs pointing to meaning.

Another bump. Anyone, anyone?

Civil rights are what they are. But I'm afraid that radical islamists are going to use our own squeamishness about all things race-related as a weapon to kill more of us.