General Mock Trial

intent? Just as intent follows the bullet... in this trial, intent follows the needle. BC raised his arm and plunged a needle into someone's arm. Perhaps there is case law  in the real world that I'm aware of that modifies this in some way that I'm unaware when dealing with HIV or a transmitted disease.
 
About the logistics of "knowledge of HIV" in 2929.04.b2- You raise a really interesting point that is difficult to parse out in the case materials. The Alford Plea makes things messy in a way that few understood. How does one prove knowledge in general?

If anything, this case raised an interesting point in prosecutorial discretion. While I don't have th case in front of me, I think another subsection of 2929.04 dealt with "knowingly harming another." (sorry if this isn't accurate. I am subject to the harshest of criticism if I'm totally off base.) Interesting to make the standards of the case so overwhelmingly high.

What is this strange tangent you have at the end here Mike? I'm not quite getting . I called McCain a cripple. I'll say whatever it is I'd like. No doubt some things you say make sense, but I'm having a hard time throwing the whole case out and its judgments and issues with it. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what your position is other than "this case sucks."

Get what I'm saying?

[not]

intent? Just as intent follows the bullet... in this trial, intent follows the needle. BC raised his arm and plunged a needle into someone's arm. Perhaps there is case law  in the real world that I'm aware of that modifies this in some way that I'm unaware when dealing with HIV or a transmitted disease.
///

No doubt some things you say make sense, but I'm having a hard time throwing the  out exactly what your position is other than "this case sucks."

If one were to lump my concerns under one banner, it would be Objection to Low Standards That Mislead Students About the Legal System.  Educators should not deceive students. This year's case was to the Law what Creationism is to Science.  Students should emerge from AMTA more educated and not less educated.  Students should become more analytical instead of more mindlessly accepting.  While this year's case was incompetently drafted from almost every perspective, that has not been my point in these last few postings.  My objective has been to point out that the students could have done a lot more with the facts and law than they did.


Misinterpret facts:

MacDonald did not become a character until the 11th hour.  Thus, his affidavit is basically irrelevant to analyze the case.  You say that "BC raised his arm and plunged the needle into someone else's arm."  There is no evidence that BC raised his arm or that he plunged the need into anyone.  One point that I have been making during the year and now after the case is over is that mockers should not invent facts. If there had been facts that BC raised his arm or plunged the needle, then the objections to BC's pleading  guilty would make less sense. 

Misinterpret the law:

BC was not charged with regular battery. Instead Midlands chose to charge BC with a specific statute which had the core element of BC's prior knowledge of his HIV status and knowledge that his behavior ran an unreasonable risk of chance of transferring the virus.  No defense team should have such low standards that is ignores the actual law with which the defendant is charged.  The purpose of AMTA should be to educated students to think like lawyers, and lawyers always assess the facts against the elements of the crime. 

From reading your posts, I have the impression that you think that BC must be guilty because stabbing a person with a needle is a battery.  That type of fuzzy thinking should be unacceptable in AMTA.  Within the first month of their first year, all mockers should have learned to compare the facts with the elements of the crime.

If you still believe that BC raised his arm and plunged the needle into Francis and that action made BC guilty under MRC 2903.11(B)(2), then you were seriously mislead as to both the facts and as to the applicable law.  Not even MacDonald said BC raised her/his arm or plunged the needle and until the unreliable MacDonald was introduced, there was absolutely no evidence from which one could infer that BC had intentionally jabbed Francis.  In fact, what little Pe-MacDonald evidence we had raised the contrary inference, to wit, that BC inadvertently scraped or punctured Francis in the side and arm as BC flew past Francis to save Max.  Inadvertence cannot support a guilty plea to a general intent or an specific intent crime.  Thus, by virtue of the facts provided to mockers by AMTA, BC was absolutely Not Guilty and it took some very sloppy and lazy thinking for mockers to succumb to the guilty plea. I am hoping that in retrospect some mockers will realize how they allowed themselves to be deceived into the same low intellectual standards which result in thousands of innocent people being sent to prison.  One cannot express outrage that an innocent man spent 26 years in prison and at the same time engage in the same type of behavior that convicts innocent people.

Whoever told you that "intent follows the bullet" should have their bar license shredded.  The first lesson of criminal law is that a crime has two separate sections, the Act and the Intent.  The trite saying that intent follows the bullet shows that the speaker has violated the most fundamental bedrock distinction in criminal law.  Such irrational and fundamentally wrong statements should find no home in the legal community (despite their abundance in opinions by Antonin Scalia).

Hova, you have been very poorly served this year.  The Alford plea actually made the defense case a no brainer. It made the case messy only for those who allowed themselves to be lead astray.  This occurs in real life; innocent people go to prison because other people have low standards.  Even when faced with facts that show the person is not guilty or facts that are horribly unreliable, juries convict innocent people.   
 
My section about Karma points would have made more sense if I had been on a different thread where it appears that I get karma demerits because the demerit giver and his cohorts dislike it when I used bold or colors or the funny faces,        .  One reason I use the bold and colors is to highlight certain points due to the prevalence of AMTA people who lurk around Perjuries.com and their cohorts to create Strawmen. The demerit givers generally operate as AMTA's Swiftboaters.  I see that over night your demerits rose to 48, and my karma demerits rose from 11 to 17.   

No lie... I'm enjoying this thread a lot. Thanks for the information, Mike!

Please don't take my harsh comments personally.  You're way ahead of me on karma demerits and I cannot spend much more time here so I've got to gather as many demerits as possible.

Seriously, I realize that my obsession to get karma demerits shows how very little respect I now have for either Perjuries.com or AMTA.  Generally, we say that an organization is good over all but with a fews bad apples.  This year the bulk of the Perjuries.com posters and AMTA participants willing sold out American values.  AMTA truly ended up screwing thousands of American students but everyone cowards in silence for fear that AMTA will retaliate against their program, or maybe, like AMTA they see nothing wrong with trashing the US Constitution and teaching students total nonsense.

Overall people get the AMTA program they deserve.  If people demanded better from AMTA, they'd get better.  Instead, most mockers defend AMTA even though it is intellectually abusing them.