HELP!...NEED ADVICE!!!

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
51
The next step in this word battle for you, MEXCOM, is the acquisition of RUSTO's IP so you can trace it to his address and rape him.
knowing his bitch ass, he'd probably try and get the pigs after me for malicious intent at making his asshole my dicks new home.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
51
LMAO!!!
You missed the entire point of dudes post.
God damn you are fucking dumb
Did I?

Because his point was that you can still be held accountable for taking money that wasn't yours. Which is why dude even told you that in your "law school" you obviously ain't making the grade if you're stupid enough to think what you said was right.

And what was your point again?

Oh yeah...that you couldn't be arrested because homeboy lacked intent.

But yeah...you're right, I obviously missed the point.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
51
im just readin this whole thread , and all i have to say is mexcom...you look straight retarded right now
trying to argue with a law school student about the law?
dayum
I don't think you're smart enough to know what the conversation is about.

Now go to your room.
 
Nov 2, 2002
8,185
238
63
41
let me school you one more time...

I can intend to have sex with a person who turns up to be underage. So what? That doesn't mean I intended to have sex with a minor. I had no malice and my crime wasn't premeditated.
if you intend to have sex with a person who "turns up" to be underage, its a "strict liability" crime...and you will only be criminally liable for the age component. So unless someone grabbed your dick and put it in a 13 year old while you were asleep, you intended to have sex with the person, and mistake isnt a defense.
But we arent talking about statutes

As in my initial point was that there are laws where in intent is not necessary to find a person culpable? But didn't you say in order for a crime to be committed one must have intent only to be proven than in fact intent is NOT necessary to commit a crime? I think the answer is a very resounding yes.
unless we are taling about homicide crimes, which only needs criminal negligence/recklessness in certain cases to convict, then yea,....there must be intent. But no, we are discussing a dude that was given extra cash at a check cashing joint. Stop trying to read between the lines acting like youre all slick.

What Law School are you in?
USD law
Because judging from your dumb ass, I can't see an accredited University taking you in as a student.
you judged wrong
 
Nov 2, 2002
8,185
238
63
41
Masters.

In Urban Planning.

You don't get to work mitigating with redevelopment agencies and NIMBY's, interpreting California's Land use and planning law, dealing with encroachment, or a counties smart growth vision by being some dumb ass kid on the Siccness that still hasn't gotten their Juris Doctor.
im 24 and about to get my JD..........
Meanwhile, you, a 35 year old loser, just barely got your masters
 
Nov 2, 2002
8,185
238
63
41
Did I?

Because his point was that you can still be held accountable for taking money that wasn't yours. Which is why dude even told you that in your "law school" you obviously ain't making the grade if you're stupid enough to think what you said was right.

And what was your point again?

Oh yeah...that you couldn't be arrested because homeboy lacked intent.

But yeah...you're right, I obviously missed the point.
yes, you can be held liable for the MONEY...which is what i said all along.

Oh yeah...that you couldn't be arrested because homeboy lacked intent.
right.....am i wrong? If so, tell me why
 
Jun 3, 2006
11,491
51
0
46
If you have the balls you should go cash your next check while she's working. And count that shit out in front of her like, "I wouldnt want any MISTAKES to be made!" lol.
lol...i aint that brave...she would give me back 20 bucks, like paybacks a bitch mutherfucker..