Am I the only 1 having trouble c/ the anti-gov't cult defending Queen Sarah with: She broke no law

[patrice]

Isn't there really something very "We are going to have our cake and eat it too" about criticizing government for too many laws and then saying an action, such as the cross-hairs graphic, is justified because there is no law against it?

[Arkana]

1. Of course she didn't break any laws.

What she did isn't illegal. It is, however, completely amoral and disgusting.

[Cid_B]

2. Only if you believe...

... and it seems to be a matter of faith around here... that all that "rhetoric" was what caused this guy to go on the attack.

Otherwise the events are unrelated...

[patrice]

5. Not the cause, the motive. nt

[patrice]

6. Money may not cause you to kill someone, but it can be your motive to do so.

The cause could be that someone offered to pay you, or that you are poor and the victim has lots of money on hand, or that you are just an angry violent person and money has less to do with killing than the convenience of a gratifying target.

Rhetoric may not be a cause, but it can be a motive.

[patrice]

4. Just a question about that: Isn't it illegal to "Shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater" not only because

people could hear "Fire!" and do hysterical dangerous things and hurt others in the process, but also because even those who don't hear "Fire!" in that environment can be affected by the hysterical stampede and do dangerous hurtful things too?

Or is it ONLY illegal, because people HEAR the word "Fire!" and, therefore, do crazy things? And if it's only illegal because people HEAR the word "Fire!", what about those who don't? Is what happens to them not illegal?

Just wondering about the idea that Loughner could never have seen Palin's cross-hairs graphic, but was affected by its effect upon others, i.e. the general public sense of what such a graphic meant (he sought publicity) maybe similar to how certain kinds of pornography are illegal whether a given person has seen them or not.

Just brainstorming here: Maybe that's not a functional legal point, but more in the nature of amoral and disgusting.

[gratuitous]

3. When they want to avoid the "moral" or "ethical" implications

They run straight for the "She broke no law" shelter of responsibility avoidance. When someone, say a doctor, is providing a perfectly legal service to, say a pregnant woman, then they play the "moral" and "ethical" cards to excuse their law-breaking. Suddenly, in order to circumvent the law of the land, they're perfectly comfortable with substituting their own "higher authority." Turn the tables, and suddenly they're conversant with the Code of Hammurabi.