question: isn't REQUIRING a sonogram before an abortion

[X Factor]

Forcing a minor to get an abortion is illegal, knowing it's being done is aiding and abetting.

Mac, I understand where you're coming from, but mere presence at a crime (if there was one) is not enough to make one a party to it.

 

[mac]

You are the one brought up sonograms. I simply pointed out there are more sounds in the heart than the one you are looking to get an emotional reaction from. Don't like it put me on your iggy list.

Actually, I'm not. The op did....kinda what the thread is about.....

:lamo

 

[mac]

Mac, I understand where you're coming from, but mere presence at a crime (if there was one) is not enough to make one a party to it.

knowingly allowing it is, though.

 

[winston53660]

Actually, I'm not. The op did....kinda what the thread is about.....

:lamo

Then you will agree there is no medical reason for this law.

 

[mac]

Then you will agree there is no medical reason for this law.

I would hazard a guess that that's not the intent of the law.

 

[X Factor]

knowingly allowing it is, though.

For the most part, you cannot be criminally liable for failing to prevent a crime from happening. I could witness a violent mugging, stand there watching as it occurs, walk away from the bleeding victim and go to a movie. Still, all I am is a witness, not a party.

 

[mac]

For the most part, you cannot be criminally liable for failing to prevent a crime from happening. I could witness a violent mugging, stand there watching as it occurs, walk away from the bleeding victim and go to a movie. Still, all I am is a witness, not a party.

You can only not be liable if you didn't know it was a crime....even then...ignorance of the law is rarely an adequate excuse.

 

[X Factor]

You are looking for an emotional choice not an informed choice.

If you're not interested in informed choice, then you really are just pro abortion.

 

[X Factor]

You can only not be liable if you didn't know it was a crime....even then...ignorance of the law is rarely an adequate excuse.

Not true, Mac, I understand why you think it should be different, but I'm not responsible for somebody else's criminal conduct unless I've taken an actual role in it.

 

[mac]

Not true, Mac, I understand why you think it should be different, but I'm not responsible for somebody else's criminal conduct unless I've taken an actual role in it.

You are if you knew it was illegal, knew it was happening, and took no action to prevent it.

 

[prometeus]

You are if you knew it was illegal, knew it was happening, and took no action to prevent it.

Actually you are not. What are you supposed to do, attack a man who just shot someone?

 

[mac]

Actually you are not. What are you supposed to do, attack a man who just shot someone?

no, you're supposed to call the cops and report it. Duh.

 

[BDBoop]

no, you're supposed to call the cops and report it. Duh.

Duh?

Let's just set that little brainiac moment aside. What "crime" was Tessa supposed to report then.

 

[X Factor]

You are if you knew it was illegal, knew it was happening, and took no action to prevent it.

I'll show you otherwise, it'll take me a minute to compile what I need to prove what I'm saying. Don't go anywhere.

 

[mac]

Duh?

Let's just set that little brainiac moment aside. What "crime" was Tessa supposed to report then.

Forcing an abortion.....are you going to let your feminism override this obvious abuse of parental power?

 

[mac]

I'll show you otherwise, it'll take me a minute to compile what I need to prove what I'm saying. Don't go anywhere.

I'll wait...

 

[X Factor]

You can only not be liable if you didn't know it was a crime....even then...ignorance of the law is rarely an adequate excuse.

Ok, here's the law of parties in the state of Texas;

PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 7. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER

SUBCHAPTER A. COMPLICITY

Sec.*7.01.**PARTIES TO OFFENSES. (a) A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both.
(b)**Each party to an offense may be charged with commission of the offense.
(c)**All traditional distinctions between accomplices and principals are abolished by this section, and each party to an offense may be charged and convicted without alleging that he acted as a principal or accomplice.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec.*7.02.**CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:
(1)**acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;
(2)**acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or
(3)**having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.
(b)**If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Notice, in all cases, in order to be "responsible for the criminal conduct of another" you have to intend to either; "[act] with the kind of culpability required for the offense" or act with the intent to "promote or assist" the commission of the crime.

See what I'm saying?

 

[mac]

Ok, here's the law of parties in the state of Texas;



Notice, in all cases, in order to be "responsible for the criminal conduct of another" you have to intend to either; "[act] with the kind of culpability required for the offense" or act with the intent to "promote or assist" the commission of the crime.

See what I'm saying?

"(3)**having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense."

Tell me how this doesn't fit my assertion.

 

[X Factor]

"(3)**having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense."

Tell me how this doesn't fit my assertion.

I knew you'd seize on that one.

It doesn't fit for two reasons;

First, the culpable mental state is not there. Tessa did not fail to act with "intent to promte or assist" the commission of the crime.

More importantly, Tessa didn't owe a "legal duty" to the girl.

More law; I bolded the important part.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY

Sec.*6.01.**REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession.
(b)**Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control.
(c)**A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as defined by Section 1.07 provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 3, Sec. 1, eff. Feb. 25, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Btw, this is the link; http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/

 

[StillBallin75]

I'll show you otherwise, it'll take me a minute to compile what I need to prove what I'm saying. Don't go anywhere.

I think X just left to personally go looking for a crime to stop.

 

[cpwill]

State law can not violate the federal Constitution.

correct. quickly reading through my constitution I see nothing that would really impact here.


what does the Texas Constitution say?

 

[winston53660]

correct. quickly reading through my constitution I see nothing that would really impact here.

It would violate a SCOTUS decision though. The law is going to be challenged.

what does the Texas Constitution say?

You can google it.

 

[mac]

I knew you'd seize on that one.

It doesn't fit for two reasons;

First, the culpable mental state is not there. Tessa did not fail to act with "intent to promte or assist" the commission of the crime.

More importantly, Tessa didn't owe a "legal duty" to the girl.

More law; I bolded the important part.



Btw, this is the link; Texas Constitution and Statutes - Home

I'm trying too, X, but I ain't seeing it. This looks like to me that if you see an offense being committed and you fail to take reasonable action to prevent it, then you are complicit.

 

[cpwill]

Actually you are not. What are you supposed to do, attack a man who just shot someone?

certainly. you should probably assign someone else to call 911 first, and then move in to protect the victim and stop the assailant - depending on the nature of enemy targeting. If you are dealing with a one-on-one shooting, a man shoots another man, then first priority is to protect the victim. if you are dealing with a one-on-many shooting; a school shooter, then your first priority is to take out the gunman.

 

[cpwill]

I'm trying too, X, but I ain't seeing it. This looks like to me that if you see an offense being committed and you fail to take reasonable action to prevent it, then you are complicit.

no, as far as I am aware there is no reverse of the Good Samaritan Law that forces people to take action. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't, it just means we can't be compelled to.