DA and the WICKED WICH name you an "idiot" ...guess why?
BECAUSE THEY LOVE YOU!
WAS LIEBT SICH...DAS NECKT SICH!
sagen die Deutschen.
Now...stpo palying "the beleidigte Leberwurst" and tell me what do you think about the McCANN case?
What you've just posted is correct. I've been writing indictments (at least before my retirement) for longer than my critics here on the forum have been alive--at least I presume so, because I've been doing it since 1954.
What you're referring to is known as "lesser included offenses", i.e. offenses whose elements are less than those required for the major charge, but of which the accused may still be found guilty because the action proved fulfills the elements of the lesser charge, whichever one the court decides has been proved.
That's why I said "at least" four lesser includeds when murder is the major charge. In this case as we've been permitted to see it, the necessary element of specific intent is absent, so murder is out of the question as the major charge.
Now whether there's an offense on the Bulgarian books which specifies killing with a motor vehicle is something I don't know. To my knowledge, no American jurisdiction has enacted one, but I've been out of this work for several years, now, and one may have been enacted somewhere that I don't know about.
This is why I'm interested in following this case. It'll be educational ri see how Bulgarian courts will handle it.
I do think that doing this sort of work, with the detailed knowledge necessary to do it properly, is somewhat above the level of "idiot", though, don't you?
I supported you in your analysis of the murderer`s intent as I studied
American Criminal Law in Berkeley and I know the definition of the crime of murder.
Now...there are different degrees of homicide,some of wich do not have the element of DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION AS E:G: SECOND DEGREE MURDER.
In such cases THE ACTUAL INTENTION TO KILL could be implied,even if there is NOT a malice aforethought.
If death is caused by an act that discloses such a reckless state of mind as to be equivalent to AN ACTUAL INTENT TO KILL,then the verdict of a second degree murder could be also pronounced.
TRhis is a case when the defendant shoots into a crowd...he does not have the intent to kill a specific person...but he takes in consideration that he might kill a uman being as a result of his/hers reckless behavior.
This is what I'm talking about with "psychoanalysis":
"How can anyone explain fact and fiction to a guy with your religious conviction? Religion is faith based, not fact! And that is you in a nutshell."
In the first place, I doubt that your knowledge of the Church and its doctrine is any better than DA's, and hers is pretty sloppy. Very early when religion first entered the discussion, I said I'd had experiences which removed all doubt. This was promptly lampooned, but it's still true, and you may believe it or not as you wish, but I've been party to some FACTS that none of you would believe.
But in the second place, you're trying to tell me how I think and why. That belongs to the psychiatrists.
I have no idea what psychoanalysis has to do with what I posted!
There is one basic thing you should remember when you say "Very little of what I've written has been interpreted by the readers in the same sense in which I wrote it.", It is almost always the fault of the writer when things are not understood by so many people.
You should never get upset with the person who reads what you write and does not understand what you meant! Look at what and how you wrote what you are trying to express and then apologize and correct to make it more easy to understand.
Please leave psychoanalysis to the professionals. You'd be surprised, I imagine, how often the courts DO arrive at the facts.
But one point you do make well. What constitutes "fact" is often tainted by the opinion of the viewer. There's so much evidence of that on this forum that it hardly needs further proof. Very little of what I've written has been interpreted by the readers in the same sense in which I wrote it.
Another example of me telling you a few things and you misconstrue one thing and respond to that and ignoring everything else.
The courts ATTEMPT to find fact but no one knows which is fact and what is fiction!
What comes out in a trial, even testimony from your buddies, the rapists, is not fact! How can anyone explain fact and fiction to a guy with your religious conviction? Religion is faith based, not fact! And that is you in a nutshell. Confusing facts with faith and thinking your opinions (with no experience!) are fact!
You really are an ( ______)! You fill in the blank!
I do believe you're beginning to catch on. That's exactly the court's problem; to find out what the FACTS are, and it requires sifting through the various versions. Each witness sees the picture differently, so you have to wade through sometimes hundreds of pages of evidence, reports, listen to witnesses, and try to figure out what the FACTS actually were.
And it's not 20 years ago, either. I've been retired for a while, now, but I was active in court work right up to the end. And each trial is different anyway, so one can't be used as a measure of another.
You and the others have all been taking what I say through your own filters, and what gets thrown back at me is unrecognizable. I'm not interested in changing your minds, since you've made them up already and no amount of further explanation is going to do any good.
There you go again!
What is said about your behavior is not opinion, it is fact!
You say the things you say and that is it! No opinions there!
What was said in a courtroom 20 years ago is NOT fact, but the the legal wrangling by two sides trying to win! A big headline for you Bill! Not everything said in a courtroom is true or factual (a fact).
You really cannot see how you incite or invite the comments you get by your stupid statements?
It's you Bill! Everyone on here says stupid things, but we all realize we have crossed a line or were mistaken. Not you!
You are the expert and you are perfect!
You are an arrogant old man who lies and then changes what he says or ignores whole quotes he has made and then cries "Why is everybody always picking on me?" (The Coasters) You are Charlie Brown and DA is your Lucy!!
You say, "I do hope you've noticed a slight difference, though. Their venom spitting is offensive, while mine has been defensive."
I find your venom-spitting terribly offensive. I don't care who started it; your words disgust me 95% of the time. Occasionally you mention football, cricket, or snooker, but it's been a long time.
It's no crime to engage people when you're bored... couldn't you try a topic like the weather? Hey, Bloke's an avid reader. Why don't you try literature?
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan