krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

krw wrote:

The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

That explains a lot, you are delusional...

No, you're just plain stupid as a stump.

I think it's rather stupid to make up **** that is easily dismissed in
the public record. You will find nothing in this thread where I said no
crime was committed. What you will find is a link to a dictionary that
you could have easily clicked on and read, verifying that you are dumb
as a stump.

The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.

I think because their was no intent it was an accident. Webster agrees
with me.

Intent has nothing to do with it, idiot.

Intent has everything to do with it, fool.

The fact is that someone
died in the commission of a crime, making it felony manslaughter (at
least).

The fact someone could be charged with a crime after getting in an
accident doesn't make it not, by definition, an accident. Huff and puff
all you want, but there is no chance you will change the meaning of the
word "accident". If the legal system wants to make it a felony if you
drive in the snow, and get in an accident, so be it. If talking on a
cell phone, and getting in an accident is going to be a felony, cool.

If the legal system wants to say it was not an accident because he was
drinking (they don't), the legal system would be wrong and it would
still be an accident. Just as the legal system, stating blacks are not
human (they did), really doesn't change the fact that blacks really are
human.

One more time:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident?r=1

Rather than bore me with your stupidity, why not learn what an accident
is, and if you want the definition changed, start a letter writing
campaign to get it changed. I'm sure your brilliance will be welcomed
by all. Don't forget to throw in a few ad hominem attacks while you are
at it...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com