| Author | Message | | funglefoot | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
| | fungalfoot wrote: | Criminal Law
Motive vs Intent
“Intent refers simply to the deliberateness
of the act -- consciously choosing to commit
the crime. Motive is the offender’s reason
for the act”
The Anatomy of Motive, John Douglas
Note: Generally, motive is immaterial in
establishing criminal liability
http://www.finance.pamplin.vt.edu/faculty/sds/CrimLaw.pdf
Motive and intent are different things as the above quote makes plain.
Prosecution only has to prove intent, not motive. |
| CB wrote: | For the act itself, true.
Proof of motive is not required for the conviction of a crime. The existence of motive is immaterial to the matter of guilt when that guilt is clearly established.
However if the 'offense' is intent (as in whether Israel intentionally attacked a US Navy ship), it is highly relevant, especially since there is no evidence that Israel intended to attack a US Navy ship.
Actually, Israel's immediate cessation of the attack when the Liberty finally signalled its identity is strong evidence of lack of intent. |
Is this the best you can do for mother Israel?
There is ample evidence that Israel intended to attack a US Navy ship:
1. Israel's warning to America that they would sink unidentified ships. Israel obviously knew that the Liberty was already off Sicily. Israel obviously did not want a spy ship listening in on their secret wartime messages.
2. Israel's extensive aerial surveillance, from very close quarters.
3. The Stars and Stripes and hull markings.
4. Overheard radio messages from Israeli pilots saying "It's an American ship."
5. Extensive NSA transcripts that were ordered destroyed but expert American witnesses can testify to their prior existence. These clearly show that the Israelis knew they were attacking the Liberty.
6. Israel claims they thought they were attacking the Egyptian El Queseir.
These two ships are vastly different in appearance as the following shows:
No sane, and honest military man could confuse these two on a day when visibility was perfect.
7. | Quote: | | Actually, Israel's immediate cessation of the attack when the Liberty finally signalled its identity is strong evidence of lack of intent. |
The Israeli objection to the Liberty was clearly because she was an electronic surveillance vessel. The repeated strafes by Israeli jets with cannon and rocket fire and napalm took out all of the radio aerials and satellite dishes and killed 7. The torpedo which struck the Liberty hit her amidships in the hold exactly where the communications centre was situated, instantly killing 25. Israel had achieved all she sought to achieve. The Liberty was rendered useless as a spy ship. Mission accomplished! The MTB could well afford to end the attack; she could ill afford to continue the attack against a finally admitted, clearly identified, American ship. The cover up had just commenced and in Washington LBJ was ordering the recall of the fighters sent to relieve the Liberty.
8. But this is an uneven match. The Israeli defense is subsidised by the American taxpayer. The American citizen pays his taxes to the State Treasury, who gives some of this money in economic aid to Israel, who gives some of this money back to AIPAC, who uses the money to buy up US Congressmen, who work to deprive the Liberty survivors of their day in court. A self-funding defense! How stupendous! Clever, clever Israel! Clever, clever Jews. But your very, very expensive scam has been found out. | |  | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: |
| | Still unanswered by the apologists. ALways will. Avoid and divert..the the Jews way. | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: |
| Islamic dance on blood of sailors goes on. These people dont have any honor, nor pride, no respect to dead. Al Jeffie even wishes to piss on graves of Syria's enemies.
| Arab whore without pride and honor wrote: | | Still unanswered by the apologists. ALways will. Avoid and divert..the the Jews way. |
Indeed nothing answered:
1) Why Israel sent planes without proper anti ship weapons?
2) Why planes were leading conversations in Hebrew on open uncoded frequence.
3) Why planes and boats were clearly marked?
4) Why first were sent Mirage III with exptremely distinguish shape?
5) Why were sent MBTs, when much simple and faster to sink ship with plane bombs? Especially since Israeli pilots are much more experienced and trained than sailors.
No answers.
No motive.
No evidences.
 | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:15 am Post subject: |
| So many questions unanswered and avoided by this lying tribe of Jews and the sycophants and here they come as usual like turds down a sewer.... the apologists avoiding ALWAYS one simple demand that the crew's simple demand for an honest open fair investigation after 40 years.
Jews really are the most dishonorable and duplicitous selfish people in history. Extolling 40 years of pride in a continued covering-up with avoidance and diversion.
They are shit. It's why there are pogroms. A Liberty apologist is evil incarnate. They are Jews.
Let us pray that one day we get it done right and show them the same lack of compassion, non-concern, immorality, non-justice and dishonesty that they showed the crew and families of the dead and the living of the USS Liberty.
_________________
2007 will be the 40th anniversary of injustice and murder and coverup.
http://usslibertyinquiry.com/
www.ussliberty.org
Lest We Forget | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: Reply: Ilana's Islamic dance on blood of sailors goes on.. |
| | Quote: | | Islamic dance on blood of sailors goes on.... |
On the contrary the American taxpayer and the Liberty survivors continue their quest for justice.
The American taxpayer paid for the Liberty in the first place.
In the second place they are subsidising the Israeli defense on a charge of murder, malicious wounding, and destruction of property. See my above post point 8 in dark red. [Apologists admit guilt by default in the assault on the Liberty]
Thirdly and most importantly, the Liberty survivors, and the family of the deceased, are entitled to their day in OPEN COURT to determine the true facts of the attack.
You can call it whatever your filthy mind can come up with, the facts remain the same and always will do until proven otherwise in an OPEN COURT OF LAW. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject: |
| No ISRAELI evidence
No ISRAELI witnesses
No ISRAELI testimony
No ISRAELI proof
No ISRAELI discovery
NO ISRAELI DEFENSE | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|  | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: |
| Nobody denies that the Israelis attacked the Liberty.
Israel says it was a case of mistaken identity and they thought they were attacking the El Quseir.
This is subjective evidence. Israel's state of mind cannot be determined without the Israeli High Command and the IAF pilots and the MTB's crews testifying in court. How can you determine a person's state of mind without questioning them? eg. Does Peter like jam? The only way you are going to find out is if you ask him! You can put a plate of toast and jam in front of him and see if he eats it but there again he may not be hungry!
Israel conducts its defense solely by relying on American evidence. I have never seen any Israeli evidence led by Cowboy.
The Americans might be able to testify to the events that took place but they can never testify to the intentions of the Israelis. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Americans to guess that the Israelis thought they were attacking the El Quseir.
If Cowboy cannot bring evidence to the Israeli state of mind then Israel's defense of mistaken identity must fail and Israel must be guilty of murder and piracy.
In a cumulative 300 odd pages of discussion Cowboy has never once led any evidence as to the Israeli state of mind before and during the attack. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: |
| CB wrote:
| CB wrote: | | Still waiting for you to provide a motive for Israel to knowingly attack a US Navy ship. |
Perhaps we could have some precedent on this?
Can Cowboy name some criminal trials that were thrown out of court because the prosecution failed to mention the motive in the indictment?
And provide links to them.
| CB wrote: | If the 'crime' involves intent, you must prove intent.
Exactly how many automobile accidents that harm people are prosecuted as intentional unless motive is presented by the prosecution?
We are discussing intent here. You claim guilt of intent unless proven innocent.
Simply absurd.
Especially when you cannot even provide a motive. |
Simply absurd - your words not mine Cowboy.
Agreed it is simply absurd to compare an automobile 'accident' with a criminal indictment. Motive is not an element of a crime. John is guilty of murder whether he killed Tom for his pet hamster or whether he killed Tom for his collection of comics. As you say 'Simply absurd'. The fact is that he killed Tom and that he intended to kill Tom. If however he accidentally killed Tom by knocking him off the station platform into the path of an oncoming train then that is not murder. He did not intend to knock Tom off the platform and he was unaware of the approaching train.
Motive exists in the mind of the accused. It is not the prosecution's duty to read the accused's mind. But if the proof of motive, in those cases where motive can easily be discovered, will strengthen the case of the prosecution then the prosecution can use motive as part of their evidence to convict the accused. Cowboy will have us believe that where intent is contested motive suddenly becomes all important. As the great man says...Simply absurd. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject: |
| Mistake (criminal law)
But, if A was in transit through an airport and picked up a bag which looked like his own, and that bag was to contain a bomb, A might attempt to argue that a mistake prevented him from being in possession of the bomb. In fact, this argument would fail because the defendant had the legal right to open, examine, and verify the contents of the bag. If he or she neglected to do so, then he or she was reckless as to the nature of the contents and therefore in possession of them. Only persons such as postal workers or other carriers who have no right to open the boxes and bags that they carry, can claim that they are not in possession of the contents. The same fate would befall defendants who tried to argue that they took another person's coat from a coat rack when they intended to take their own and so were not in possession of the prohibited drugs found in one of the pockets. In neither of these cases does the mistake prevent the defendants from forming the requisite mens rea to possess the contents. Such defendant intend to possess the contents, no matter what those contents may later prove to be
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+(criminal+law)
Lets apply this to our situation:
If Israel was engaged in a war and spotted a neutral ship that looked like an enemy and proceeded to bomb that ship she might attempt to argue that a mistake of identity prevented her from committing murder, malicious wounding and destruction of property. In fact this argument would fail because Israel had every right and opportunity to check the identity of the ship. If Israel neglected to do so then she was reckless as to the true identity of the ship and therefore intended to bomb it. The mistake of identity does not prevent Israel from forming the requisite mens rea to commit the crimes of murder, wounding and destruction.
Visibility was 100%. Israel had total dominance of the skies. The Arab air forces were annihilated. The Liberty, while not advertising her presence, was not hiding. How do you hide something as big as a ship? Israel had every opportunity to establish beyond all doubt the true identity of the Liberty. And in fact she did so identify her. Therefore her attack can only be intentional. In fact Israel murdered, maliciously wounded, and destroyed property. After pages and pages of argument the matter is finally settled. The Law has spoken. Did I hear correctly? I believe so, but only time will tell. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
