Skip to main content

View Diary: Morning Feature: Conspiracy Theory 103 - Conspiracies of Convenience (Plus Kossascopes) (178 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Conspiracy requires intent. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kktlaw, FarWestGirl

    Willful ignorance might be enough to prove intent, in the sense that you could show intent to cause bodily harm if someone closes his eyes and fires a gun into a crowd.  He's not aiming at anyone.  Indeed he's not aiming at all, and the way he's not aiming shows what lawyers call "depraved indifference," which is a kind of intent.

    But mere incompetence does not show the kind of intent required for a conspiracy.

    •  If I recall the jury instructions correctly, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NCrissieB

      that was pretty much the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder. 1st was intending to kill the individual and 2nd was doing something that anyone with sense would know put someone in grave danger. Ignoring the pre 9/11 reports warning of Bin Laden's intentions a month before it happened was what I was thinking of. Arguably incompetence on Bush's part, insufficient data on Cheeney, but 'depraved indifference' certainly seems to fit the persona he projects. (.."So?"..)

      Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

      by FarWestGirl on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:13:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site