Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: TigersEye

“Don’t strain your last surviving brain cell trying to figure this out “

No sweat. I’m actually sad it’s this easy. There is nothing really to “figure out” here since you are incorrect again on two fronts.

First, you again trapped yourself with the logical fallacy Ignoratio elenchi by using correct information, but which didn’t address the issue in question. This automatically disqualifies you from winning this argument so the rest of this post from here on out is just to point out how miserably you failed here.

The word I used was “your” not “yours”. It is a different word and is used differently in sentence structure to convey a different syntax. Here’s how…

“Your rant” means the rant is attributed to you. Since the word ‘rant’ is a verb, not a noun, it is impossible for ‘your’ in the context I used it to be a proNOUN (get it?) and is instead is a possessive determiner or adjective…something completely different than if I said ‘this rant is yours’ (which, by the way, wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever since you can’t have possession over a verb…it would be like saying this ‘leap’ is yours…but I digress and you are likely too stupid to understand or see the difference anyway)

Second (as if your first blunder wasn’t bad enough), the facts clearly show that YOU erroneously accused me of using the wrong grammatical form of the word ‘your’ and said it should have been ‘you’re’. You defended your accusations and lobbed pejoratives at me despite repeated factual rebuttals. Now you come back with some pointless crap concerning the context of the word “yours” I never used as if it somehow changed the facts and supported your argument. The addition of the “brain cell” comment in this case just makes you look even more idiotic.

If you wish to keep digging your own grave, keep it coming. I’m finding this amusing.

86 posted on 04/23/2012 7:36:56 PM PDT by Frenetic74 (Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: Frenetic74
This will be far beyond your reading comprehension but someone might benefit.

Understanding The Complex Colorado Crime of Reckless Endangerment C.R.S. 18-3-208

by H. Michael Steinberg – A Denver, Colorado Reckless Endangerment Attorney, C.R.S. 18-3-208

A person who recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person commits Colorado Reckless Endangerment, which is a class-3 misdemeanor in our state. C.R.S. 18-3-208.

The definition of “recklessly” is: “A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.”

Every Crime is broken down into it’s elements – to prove this crime beyond a reasonable doubt – the District Attorney mut prove that:

1. The Defendant

2. Recklessly

3, Engaged in Conduct which created a Substantial Risk of Serious Bodily Injury

4. To Another Person

The focus on most defenses to this crime is defeating the mental state behind the act itself – that mental state is “Recklessly.” Sometimes that requires the testimony of an expert on the standard of care to be applied in a given example of someone’s conduct.

For example when it comes to the crime of manslaughter in Colorado:

Recklessness involves a higher level of culpability than criminal negligence, but requires less culpability than intentional actions. The State establishes a cause of action for reckless manslaughter when it proves the defendant caused the victim’s death and the defendant

Consciously disregarded a substantial and Unjustified risk that he would Cause the death of another.

The court may infer that the defendant was subjectively aware of the risk, However, the Court must weigh the nature and purpose of defendant’s conduct against the risk created by that conduct in evaluating whether a risk is unjustifiable. A substantial and unjustified risk is a gross deviation from the standard of care.

Risk of death to another in a general sense is sufficient; defendant need not risk death of a specific individual.

88 posted on 04/23/2012 8:49:27 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson