|
Please stop posting that he shouldn't have invited her into his bed since that's apparently not what happened... read the OP and links BEFORE commenting. |
On July 08 2011 02:39 oursblanc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 02:28 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 13:46 Mojar wrote:
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works. I'm guessing you've never experienced it then. :p
Yeah, he has no clue what hes talking about. When I was really, really young (like, 6 years old) I used to sleep walk when I needed to go to the bathroom. My father would always be working in his office, and I would walk in and stand in his office just staring at nothing (creepy eh?) at which point he would have to take me to the washroom and put me back in bed.
Now, what happened if someone didn't take me to the washroom is I would wander around the house until I found a door that opened into a small room (like a washroom), and I would just pee there. So, on occasion, I ended up peeing in a closet, or whatever. (remember, 6 years old, really young)
Does that sound like my brain was working as well as it would when I was awake? (well, I guess you don't know me, so you'll just have to trust me when I say I never tried to pee in closets while awake.)
If I can mistake a coat closet for a bathroom when sleepwalking, then there is no doubt that this guy could mistake this 16 year old girl for his former wife, girlfriend or some beautiful woman he was dreaming about, or whatever. Your brain just doesn't function the same way, and thats why you can't prove intent. His intent may have been to have consensual sex with whomever he was dreaming he was having sex with.
|
i dont even
User was warned for this post
|
On July 08 2011 02:35 Akta wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 02:28 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 13:46 Mojar wrote:
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works. Are you claiming that you are aware of everything you do in your sleep?
Not in my sleep, but when I'm half-awake. Not remembering something doesn't mean you are not aware.
|
On July 08 2011 03:58 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 02:35 Akta wrote:On July 08 2011 02:28 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 13:46 Mojar wrote:
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works. Are you claiming that you are aware of everything you do in your sleep? Not in my sleep, but when I'm half-awake. Not remembering something doesn't mean you are not aware.
Not remembering something is also often evidence of being unconscious or in an automatistic state. You gotta stop focusing on this, move on to more important factors such as the fact that it was found that this was accurate evidence of him being unconscious at the time.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 09:15 Myles wrote:On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common. No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep. I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang? If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory. This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in. Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random. My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case. With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught.
This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go.
|
On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 09:15 Myles wrote:On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common. No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep. I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang? If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory. This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in. Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random. My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case. With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go.
I dunnno.
My friend is kind of like this, and he does kind of stupid shit when he's this much asleep. Once I 'half' woke up him, through patting him on his feet pretty hard, and he roared "GAAAH MY BACK" and then promptly went back to sleep.
I think the brain is in bad enough shape in this state to judge him innocent atleast.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
Summary: Involuntary acts are not criminal.
I am self-educated in all matters of law, which I think is freely available to everyone. From what I understand, there must be two elements for establishing guilt: actus reus (criminal act) and mens rea (criminal mind).
There are a lot of resources for studying both, for example:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens rea
Just don't use Wikipedia (too many cooks spoil the broth).
|
Use Wikipedia, but don't read what's on Wikipedia. Read the sources that are cited to make up the Wikipedia article.
And Wikipedia isn't as bad as people make it out to be.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
On July 08 2011 04:57 SolHeiM wrote:
Use Wikipedia, but don't read what's on Wikipedia. Read the sources that are cited to make up the Wikipedia article.
And Wikipedia isn't as bad as people make it out to be.
I am just always wary of:
1) Mzoli's incident on WP
2) 'Edit wars'
whenever I read it.
I think I had a source story for Mzoli's thing, let me try and find it
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
|
On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 09:15 Myles wrote:On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common. No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep. I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang? If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory. This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in. Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random. My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case. With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go.
I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them.
First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that?
Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this?
Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone.
This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles.
If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there.
The same goes for this.
Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason.
|
Hmm I dont know about this. I bet his lawyer could sell ice on antarctica, salt in destiny's stream chat etc... Just sound too crazy to be true imo.
|
Honestly any discussion in this thread seems pointless. There's way too much information that we simply don't have.
|
On July 08 2011 05:41 dpurple wrote:
Hmm I dont know about this. I bet his lawyer could sell ice on antarctica, salt in destiny's stream chat etc... Just sound too crazy to be true imo.
If the guy wasn't conciously doing it then I don't see why everyone is so surprised at this verdict >.>
|
On July 08 2011 05:47 Haemonculus wrote:
Honestly any discussion in this thread seems pointless. There's way too much information that we simply don't have.
The discussion is about what we have enough information to conclude :D
My opinion: not enough to conclude much of anything...although most posters seem to disagree, we're slowly weeding them out.
|
On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 09:15 Myles wrote:On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common. No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep. I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang? If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory. This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in. Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random. My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case. With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason.
Thank you for saving me 5 minutes of my life. You forgot to point out how turning your alarm clock off/getting told something by your mom isn't even close to the same thing as sleep walking or sexsomnia and I would not even come close to considering it in the same conscious state.
|
On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote:
Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous
User was warned for this post
why would he get warned for saying that?
|
Sleepwalking isn't about complexity. It works all through memory, that's why people can walk around their house without walking into things and stubbing their toe. You don't remember what you do. If the man has this condition, I'm leaning more towards him being innocent as far as not knowing he did it.
|
On July 08 2011 07:54 GoBackToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote:
Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous
User was warned for this post why would he get warned for saying that?
Because he didn't bother to learn any of the facts before he opened his mouth.
|
On July 08 2011 07:54 GoBackToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote:
Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous
User was warned for this post why would he get warned for saying that?
Because he didn't even read the white box at the top of this thread, NOR the OP, NOR any of the articles in the OP, NOR any of the pages in the thread...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
