Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kgod999
criminal statutes say that when u commit a crime you WILLFULLY DID IT OR INTENTIONALLY DID IT. so, lets say you use a right to travel defense per the constitution or whatever case law you prefer it that regards. thats your affirmative defense. that you didnt INTENTIONALLY commit the crime. this isnt hard. the only thing i agree with you on is most people dont take the time to read the constitution,so, you are correct, most people dont understand it. but, i feel they would understand it over some of the freedom movement material.
|
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
To my knowledge *all* U.S. States in their traffic courts are civil proceedings in nature given a criminal burden of proof. They must find actus rea and mens rea: 1) guitly act and 2) guilty mind [i.e. intent to do it].
If someone drugs you against your will and you crash into a house killing someone: there is no mens rea. Actually the drugger can be held accountable (this is alluded to in principles concerning bartender liability).
If someone plants a gun on you that was used to commit a crime and you were set up: there is neither actus rea nor mens rea.
Might Romans 7 even touch upon the likes of of 'actus rea' and 'mens rea'?
The shadowy figures going around bringing mayhem to the countryside work mainly on appearances of things. They try to make people they target *appear* to be willingly doing evil. They kick people down on their face and kick their cart of apples over and go "See I told you he was clumsy" and then hope their victim is dumb enough to feel guilty for getting shoved face first into the eart. Like someone I know once poignantly said: there is a difference between committing suicide and being thrown into a hole by those who envy you. Heh, even their lies aren't substantial they are just appearance-oriented. Fortunately as kgod alludes: seems there must be 'actus rea' and 'mens rea'. Apparently, they presume both.