ORIGINAL: mjk428
No, I understood perfectly that you applied a racial stereotype to muddy the water.
[/quote]
Heh, this is too funny. First, I think its blindingly obvious that I added the gang-variable to (try to) explain to you what would need to be changed for this to be a case of collective guilt. Second, why would "gang" be a racial stereotype? Are you implying that only a certain ethnicity is involved in gangs? LOL.
Do you have any evidence that the "gang" they belonged to was larger than the four of them?
Nope, and that is indeed completely irrelevant. BUT you tried to hold this up as an example of collective guilt. Now, since all four guys took part in the break-in, that means they are all guilty of the "original" crime that led up to the murder. That means your collective guilt-theory crumbles into pieces before your eyes (not that you understand it though). For it to be collective guilt, someone else (that means other than these four) who was not part of the original crime, must be convicted for the murder. Now if you feel incomfortable with adding the gang-parameter to fill the equation, feel free to add another parameter...family perhaps, ethnicity if you want to make the Japan-comparrison, friend, spouse, whatever.
I understand the legal reasoning and it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but you insist it's not a duck.
LOL, yeah, you understand the legal reasoning alright...at least as far as google will take you. I like the duck-analogy however, maybe I'll try it in court some day.
But your honor, I think this looks like a duck, and Im quite sure it quacks like a duck too... lets leave all those pesky paragraphs aside and lets decide this case on my gut feeling instead.
Whatever you call it, it's quite obvious that not all guilt is determined individually as you claim - not even in a courtroom.
Here is a piece of advice. Follow this case if you can. Look at the case on court-tv or whatever. Perhaps you could get a transcript of the verdict some day. When you do, ask yourself this. Did the prosecutor try to lead in evidence that all four were at the scene of the crime together. Did he try to lead in evidence that all four knowingly and willingly took part in the original break-in. Because if he does, and if the court finds that he has been able to show that, then..surprise surprise, we have tried these guys as individuals.
For the 3rd time: Why would an attorney need to plead for his client to be treated individually when according to you that's the only way possible? "You're not a lawyer so you don't understand" is not an answer.
Sure, there is a law that says roughly this. If you are part of a group of people who decide to do a burglary into someones home, and if you know that one or more of your group are carrying a gun to be used in case someone tries to interfer with your burglary, then once you have passed the threshold into the house (once the "original crime" is committed) anything that happens is on your head aswell. The court will argue that since you knowingly and willingly took part in the original crime despite knowing that your friends were armed, then you must have been in agreement with the fact that the gun might also come to be used. You commit the crime "together and with shared intent". This is not an example of collective guilt however, since you are all tried individually for your knowledge/understanding and intent to join the original crime.
I really don't have to prove anything and it should be painfully obvious to boot. Every member of the Japanese military
that was part of an invading force was somewhere they didn't belong. Just like a lawyer to leave out the qualifier bolded for your attention the second time around. Anyway, this line of attack was just for fun. You've already been beaten by David Brener & Procrustes.
Actually, for your collective guilt-theory to work, you will need to show that every individual of the Japanese armed forces took part in the trespassing. If you fail to do that, then not every member trespassed, and thus, not every member can be convicted for any eventual crime that took part during the trespassing. So...if for example I can hold up one example of a Japanese soldier who never left his homeland, your case fails. And, since it is quite easy to hold up the example of some poor AA-gunner in Nagoya or whatever, who never left Japan, you fail.
Now, this is actually a pretty good analogy to the break-in case you were talking about earlier, so dont just dismiss all this out of frustration of being wrong. Think of it this way.
Guys doing the break in = Japanese army in China.
Guy who shot the victim = Japanese soldiers committing warcrimes.
Members of the gang = Japanese armed forces
Members of the gang who stayed at home during this particular night = Japanese soldiers who never committed any warcrime.
Now, when doggie calls for the slaughtering of all japanese soldiers (lets be nice and pretend he only meant japanese soldiers shall we..even though we both know it isnt so). He is in effect calling for the punishment of all the gang-members, including those who didnt take part in the crime. I have tried to explain why this is wrong. This made doggie angry and he called me names. It also made you angry, because you have insisted that all gang-members should share the same guilt, and you have tried over and over again to make the case that all members are equally guilty...because you think guilt can be collective like this.
Now consider this. How does it rhyme with your sense of justice and you morals to have those gang-members who were at home that night playing PS3 with their girlfriend or whatever...executed for the murder someone else committed in another part of the city?
