Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is another very similar question in here:

    If the interviewer had pulled out a gun but missed because he had a bad arm, had he commited a crime?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    so then how could you prove that the interviewer thought the gun was live?
    intention to kill, its different. Hell u can bang him up for public assault, aggravation, unlawful gun, hell persucte him for breach of peace.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    There is another very similar question in here:

    If the interviewer had pulled out a gun but missed because he had a bad arm, had he commited a crime?
    INtention to kill/murder.

    Its like saying if I shot Bush, but missed do u think the secret service will let me go?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    has noone seen and been taught the morals of "minority report"?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    INtention to kill/murder.

    Its like saying if I shot Bush, but missed do u think the secret service will let me go?
    lol- these questions are really odd!!.. especially if your not meant to have any knowledge of the law before hand.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    has noone seen and been taught the morals of "minority report"?
    ...I don't think I've seen that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)

    If I returned to the waiting room and my coat had been taken and I then took another one, got home and actually discovered it was mine had I commited a crime?

    If the interview erpulled out a gun and aimed it at me, thinking it was loaded but, in fact, was full of blanks and fired it at me with the intention to kill had he commited a crime?
    1) Theft Act 1968 - "A person is found guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving him of it; and `thief' and `steal' shall be construed accordingly". You have not had the 'dishonest intention' or the intention to permanently deprive.

    2) Someone can be tried for murder who has the intention to cause death or GBH with malicious intention. It seems the interviewer has the necessary actus reus (the act itself - shooting the gun) and maybe the mens rea (internal/mental) elements to be tried for attempted murder with no apparent defence of provocation, self-defence etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bo!Selecta)
    1) Theft Act 1968 - "A person is found guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving him of it; and `thief' and `steal' shall be construed accordingly". You have not had the 'dishonest intention' or the intention to permanently deprive.

    2) Someone can be tried for murder who has the intention to cause death or GBH with malicious intention. It seems the interviewer has the necessary actus reus (the act itself - shooting the gun) and maybe the mens rea (internal/mental) elements to be tried for attempted murder with no apparent defence of provocation, self-defence etc.
    well researched

    Come on elle, we want more questions!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bo!Selecta)
    1) Theft Act 1968 - "A person is found guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving him of it; and `thief' and `steal' shall be construed accordingly". You have not had the 'dishonest intention' or the intention to permanently deprive.

    2) Someone can be tried for murder who has the intention to cause death or GBH with malicious intention. It seems the interviewer has the necessary actus reus (the act itself - shooting the gun) and maybe the mens rea (internal/mental) elements to be tried for attempted murder with no apparent defence of provocation, self-defence etc.
    Thanks for the information! ...but if you took the coat thinking it was someone else's that would be a "intention to permentently deprive" wouldn't it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    well researched

    Come on elle, we want more questions!
    Lol.. ok.. this is more of a moral one:

    If a law is immoral, is it still a llaw and must people abide by it?

    Example: When Hitler legallised the systematic killing of Jews, was it still a law?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Lol.. ok.. this is more of a moral one:

    If a law is immoral, is it still a llaw and must people abide by it?

    Example: When Hitler legallised the systematic killing of Jews, was it still a law?
    yes
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Thanks for the information! ...but if you took the coat thinking it was someone else's that would be a "intention to permentently deprive" wouldn't it?
    Yes, but the fact that he ended up with his own coat means that when questioned he'll just say that he was carrying home his own coat. Like if u stopped me in the streets and asked me if I was wearing my own clothes, well of course i would say yes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    yes
    well I would argue not because a law is something that upholds justice and equality.. if it doesn't meet these two criterea then it's not a proper law
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Lol.. ok.. this is more of a moral one:

    If a law is immoral, is it still a llaw and must people abide by it?

    Example: When Hitler legallised the systematic killing of Jews, was it still a law?
    Did he? I thought he was a dictator? And a law must pass thru the Riechstag but since he took over and declared marshal law, he could make up laws, none of which was later legalised.

    A law is a law, and people must abide by them. But whether it is just is another matter.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    well I would argue not because a law is something that upholds justice and equality.. if it doesn't meet these two criterea then it's not a proper law
    ie if it is a just law
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Yes, but the fact that he ended up with his own coat means that when questioned he'll just say that he was carrying home his own coat. Like if u stopped me in the streets and asked me if I was wearing my own clothes, well of course i would say yes.
    So if he when questioned confessed, would it then be a crime ? I am not very found of the idea that whether a person ahs commited a crime or not depends on whether he confess or not afterwards...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    and when u break law=can be prosecuted
    no...

    to be prosecuted there needs to be evidence "beyond reasonable doubt"..

    there are plenty of instances where someone could commit a crime without anyone ever knowing it was them, let alone having enough evidence to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt"..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    ie if it is a just law
    Just law is the only type of law in my eyes. Immoral law is just a set of rules and commands.. I guess it all comes down to what your definition of Law is in the end.

    By the way- are you studying law?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    no...

    to be prosecuted there needs to be evidence "beyond reasonable doubt"..

    there are plenty of instances where someone could commit a crime without anyone ever knowing it was them, let alone having enough evidence to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt"..
    I have to agree with you on this. Is there a right answer do you think?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So if he when questioned confessed, would it then be a crime ? I am not very found of the idea that whether a person ahs commited a crime or not depends on whether he confess or not afterwards...
    I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth. If I confessed that I raped someone, then the police needs to legally check if it is true. Then Determine whether I was a timewaster or mentally imbalanced. In fact I know of a singer who confessed to throwing a stone through a window (which he never did) because he didnt have enough money to stay in the hotel. Nice thinking I reckon cause he got free food, and a place to stay
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.