Mens Rea Puns

Why do Florida authorities believe Brian Laundrie possesses the latter but not the former?

I’m curious what the anti-abortion crowd feels about self-defense. Most people agree that if you’re being attacked, either enslaved, wrongly in-prisoned, raped, you can defend yourself with at least the minimum force and in some cases deadly force.

If the person doing the attacking is somehow not conscious or cognizant, mentally ill or handicapped or any other reason that deems the attacker not of a guilty mind, can you still defend yourself? Or should you roll over and start praying?

Edit: Answers so far*

1. This question isn’t worth answering
2. I would block as much as possible and try to run away

*Neither of these first two are technically answers to my question

3. It’s not about intent (meaning: yes you can defend yourself without their mens rea, unless you’re a pregnant woman)

(Prev) (Wiki) (Next)

Themircn Ambassador Gahlen Baskor tried to ignore the agitated fidgeting of Whendi Sorsong, the small prey-bird-like Findil ambassador, and pay attention to their Human host. The man pointed out the window at the planet which dominated the rather breathtaking view of space afforded by the largest window he’d ever seen on a space station. The man wore a careful smile, and was trying – valiantly, in Gahlen’s opinion – not to react to the screeching near-accusations of the little Ambassador as he answered her question. “The two of you were invited because you share access to the Vandarran system, and raw riches that system holds. The fact that the highest concentration of riches that system are locked away on a planet with gravity even higher than we humans are comfortable with, and unstable magnetic disturbances to boot, has complicated matters for you.

“Well, we – at this research station which we placed in an uninhabited system in order to perform research that might otherwise be considered a risk to civilians – have developed a solution! Well, to be fair, the solution itself is not new… and we know that your governments have been debating on methods of implementing one form or other of the solution… and I guess what you could say is that we have come up with a new *form* of the solution, one which costs slightly less than the others and results in less waste…”

The human had begun to look away from them, appearing to stare at something far in the distance. He finally shook himself and brought his attention fully back to the present. Engineers Gahlen thought to himself, I guess some things are fairly constant across species. The man continued speaking. “You will find a full geological work-up of the planet you see down there on the pads we gave you when we arrived. It does not have the rich potential for exploitation that your problem world does, but shares the characteristics that matter for the purposes of this method."

Gahlen nodded slightly, “What characteristics would those be?”

“Molten core, large magma layer, relatively thin surface crust with low tectonic activity, magnetic instability caused by abnormal magma flow. The difference between your problem child and our boy out there is that the instability in

Seems to be a common pro-life idea that if a person has no mens rea (or legal intent, aka culpable guilt) that there is no crime that can be committed.

In debating this today with someone I think I came up with a good analogy for you all to understand how intent doesn't matter when violations of laws are occuring which endanger others.

And that is in traffic laws.

Most traffic laws are oriented around the operation of a vehicle but also they are oriented around the ability/specs/dimensions of a vehicle as well.

If your car, for example, has lost it's backlights and break lights in the middle of the night, your vehicle and your vehicle being driven by you on a road, is in violation of traffic law; even if you don't know what's happening and it's not your fault.

I'm sure you all learned this when getting your licenses right? That's why if you notice your car breaking down you have to pull over to the side of the road and get your hazards on.

Why? Because it is endangering other vehicles on the road.

So what can a policeman do? They have the right to pull you over (violate your rights) to find out what is going on (and ask you if you know the problem). Even if you weren't aware of the issue, a cop can even demand that your vehicle get off the road right then and there. They can literally (if conditions are bad enough and your car broken enough) demand that you park your car and get it towed, even if it's not your fault.

Why? Because driving a vehicle that is not safe for others is an unlawful act, even if you are doing so by accident/unaware.

Most cops won't charge you for this (because most people do this by accident), but they can, it is within their right.

Any violation (criminal act, whether involuntary or voluntary) CAN RESULT in a charge. CAN DOESNT MEAN IT WILL, but that means the state CAN. It is the legal right of the state to try you, and it is your legal right to be presumed innocent anyway.

Thankfully most of us live in a society where most police respect the rational rule of law, including not charging people for common mistakes which are most often the result of circumstances beyond their control.

That doesn't mean though, that if you drive your car broken on the road you won't eventually be ticketed/charged/fined etc, because obviously if you go without fixing it long enough, that can show intent.....

But anyway, pro-life people will constantly say "the fetus isn't assaulting you it has no intent! It's not a crimina

What if I committed sexual assault without mens rea intention, because I don't pick on all social cues? I have Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Let's imagine I still had a girlfriend and and I ask her if she wants to have sex, she then says "Yes", As soon I have sex with her she changed her mind and doesn't want to have sex and I kept having sex with her, because she did not tell me to "Stop, let's not do sex now", but her body languages is saying stop to me and I still kept having sex with her until she told to "Stop or I will call the police on you" and I was confused, because I am not very good at reading social cues. I understand things in literal ways.

But, how do I know when to ask her if she is okay?

It's scary to think about it even!

What red flag do I look for?

Thank you!

I am sorry that I asked! Autism Spectrum Disorder is kind of Communication Learning Disorder.

But before I do sex, I want to improve on my social skills a little more. I don't want to make mistakes and then be falsely accused of rape.

Hi. I'll give as an example of Hitler.

Hitler thought that the world will be better if Aryan race will be the single race on earth, so he started exterminating other races (jews,gypsy and so on).

If mens rea is defined by " the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty "

Does that mean that Hitler wouldn't been charged, or he would be hospitalized in a mental institution because in his mind, he wasn't guilty?

Can you explain "mens rea" / "actus reus" ?

If someone commits murder and in their mind, they are not guilty, what happens?

Rand Paul and United States Senator Mike Lee introduce the Mens Rea Reform Act to reduce overcriminalization, rein in excessive regulation, and curb overzealous prosecutions. https://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/featured-articles/26615-sens-lee-tillis-and-paul-introduce-mens-rea-reform-act

i saw this da on the wiki - can anyone pls explain what the link chain is? and how would i answer this da

https://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Bellarmine/Talur-Manens%20Neg

- ty - im rlly sry for bothering everyone here so often

I’m concerned with the common law because I know the MPC says to assume at least recklessness if no mens rea is stated.

Take for example, “unlawful killing of another without malice aforethought.”

Assuming that the legislature doesn’t intend for the law to be strict liability, what mens rea is assumed in the common law?

This has nothing to do with anything actually going on in my life, just something I was pondering and figured I'd ask here, in case there is a criminal lawyer who can help me understand better.

If establishing a guilty mind or intent to act contrary to law is a vital part of determining if an act was criminal or not, how does that square with the common axiom that ignorance of the law is not a defense? If a person is ignorant of a law they cannot possibly have had intent to break it, so how could Mens Rea ever be established? How does the interplay between these two concepts work?

Part of the 2003 act states the mens rea is fulfilled if the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim consented to the penetration.

So how does it work if the defendant does believe the victim is consenting but a reasonable person would not believe so?

Prefaced by stating that IANAL...this was just found in general research.

Idaho does not allow defendants to plead to an "insanity defense," per se.

>In 1982, the Idaho Legislature repealed Idaho's insanity defense statute and enacted a law that states that "mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct," but the court may consider expert evidence on "any state of mind which is an element of the offense."

But Idaho does have convoluted case law where a defendant might seek a plea on the grounds that they claim they lacked criminal "mens rea" or "guilty mind" to have known right from wrong.*

(See the example of Idaho case law below that directly speaks to the "mens rea" defense.)

>*Insanity defense not allowed in Idaho: In 1982, the Idaho Legislature repealed Idaho's insanity defense statute and enacted aregard law that states that "mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct."
>
>Idaho law would distinguish the following two cases.
>
>Case One: The defendant, due to insanity, believes that the victim is a wolf. He shoots and kills the victim.
>
>Case Two: The defendant, due to insanity, believes that a wolf, a supernatural figure, has ordered him to kill the victim.
>
>In Case One*, the defendant does not know he has killed a human being, and his insanity negates a mental element necessary to commit the crime.
>
>In Case Two*, the defendant has intentionally killed a victim whom he knows is a human being; he possesses the necessary mens rea.
>
>In both cases the defendant is unable, due to insanity, to appreciate the true quality of his act, and therefore unable to perceive that it is wrong.
>
>But in Idaho, the defendant in Case One could defend the charge by arguing that he lacked the mens rea, whereas the defendant in Case Two would not be able to raise a defense based on his mental illness.
>
>***[Delling v. Idaho, No. 11-1515 (U.S. Nov. 26, 2012) (Breyer, J., dissenting)]***

The example in Case One specifically addresses the Idaho law concerning a defendant who commits a murder while operating under the delusion that the murder victim is a not a human being.

In Case Two the defendant believes a *supernatural being ordere

[CW: quotes giving examples of transphobia]

Too many cis people seem to be confused that "misgendering" means you're a horrible person if you just accidentally call a stranger by the wrong pronouns, which is totally not the case. Then I read about the mens rea standard and found it's really applicable, and, for me at least, a pretty good predictor of how and why I react to instances of misgendering. Intent is all. I think this would be a good set of categories and words to use to clarify things, from highest to least severity:

• Intentionally: "the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur" - in this case, misgendering someone as an insult, with the specific intent to cause them emotional suffering. e.g. a 4channer going "I love triggering trannies"

• Knowingly: "the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur." - knowing that you are misgendering someone, but not caring about how they feel about it one way or another. e.g. Jordan Petersen's "I'm not out to hurt people, but I won't let their feelings get in the way of me using the pronouns I feel are correct"

• Recklessly: "the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not." - knowing that someone is trans and just referring to them however without asking. e.g. "Yeah, Dave said he's becoming a woman, I totally support him, well, he never told me to call him 'she', so I don't want to waste the time to retrain my habits yet"

• Negligently: "the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences." - not knowing that something would misgender someone, but not doing anything to make sure when a reasonable person would. e.g. being at a trans meetup and not checking that your guess is right.

And I'll add one more:

• Innocently: Acting on good faith with wrong or no information. e.g. Having a friend tell you how to refer to someone, and they turn out to be mistaken.

A lot of people here have been bemoaning how this sub is pretty much TMZ sports lite. Memes, gossip, drama, just all around bullshit.

I haven't necessarily disagreed with this opinion but out of curiosity I found a snapshot of this place on the same day in January 2014 to compare. I'm not trying to offer any revelation or dispute any claim, this was purely for my entertainment. Any analysis from now on is probably already common knowledge.

Here's the snapshot

https://web.archive.org/web/20140108125500/reddit.com/r/nba

I think right away the most apparent and obvious difference is the subject of posts. Back then, we would post highlights and more analysis. Remember u/mens_rea? He was so good at explaining basketball concepts there were posts wondering if he was Zach Lowe undercover. Seriously he was the tits, check these out if you have time:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/z6ahm/i_made_a_collection_of_mens_rea_stuff/

He has since deleted his account and his contributions are sorely missed by me.

Now we have posts with players comments on social issues. We have more articles and twitter posts. And these are with regard to more drama subjects like beefs between players. Does this sound familiar? Well, it's pretty much just like ESPN. Compare it to the snapshot, it's mostly highlights.

Seriously, look at those highlights. Specifically look at how many different players are featured! It's awesome! I could see all sorts of different players make different plays. Sure the top players get the most upvotes as normal, but the front page still features others. Nowadays, really only the marquee matchups have highlights visible.

None of this is really surprising. Any growth like this and the content becomes least common denominator. The Steve Kerr quote explains it beautifully. Really the only reason I personally come back to r/NBA is because the comments in posts, despite sometimes being polarizing and non-sensical, are millions of times better than the comments on ESPN.

Here are the comments in an ESPN article about Lebron's take on the H&M advertisement:

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22014230/lebron-james-rips-hm-advertising-image-says-african-americans-always-break-barriers

Ouch.

I guess this is a unashamedly sentimental post. I love r/nba. It's been a constant in my life for about 6 years. Love talking basketball, watching highlights, and learning new things. 2011-2014 were the peak years, especially with Grantland still existing

Casefile is my favorite true crime podcast. But I do listen to some others. I just listened to episode 62 of Mens Rea and it reminded me of Ella Tundra. Basically, what obsession can make people do. This episode could have used Casefile's story telling abilities to really make it compelling. But it is very interesting nonetheless.

https://mensreapod.com/2020/03/01/62-kidnap-joyce-mckinney/

What if I committed sexual assault without mens rea intention, because I don't pick on all social cues? I have Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Let's imagine I still had a girlfriend and and I ask her if she wants to have sex, she then says "Yes", As soon I have sex with her she changed her mind and doesn't want to have sex and I kept having sex with her, because she did not tell me to "Stop, let's not do sex now", but her body languages is saying stop to me and I still kept having sex with her until she told to "Stop or I will call the police on you" and I was confused, because I am not very good at reading social cues. I understand things in literal ways.

But, how do I know when to ask her if she is okay?

It's scary to think about it even!

What red flag do I look for?

Thank you!

I am sorry that I asked! Autism Spectrum Disorder is kind of Communication Learning Disorder.

But before I do sex, I want to improve on my social skills a little more. I don't want to make mistakes and then be falsely accused of rape.

What if I committed sexual assault without mens rea intention, because I don't pick on all social cues? I have Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Let's imagine I still had a girlfriend and and I ask her if she wants to have sex, she then says "Yes", As soon I have sex with her she changed her mind and doesn't want to have sex and I kept having sex with her, because she did not tell me to "Stop, let's not do sex now", but her body languages is saying stop to me and I still kept having sex with her until she told to "Stop or I will call the police on you" and I was confused, because I am not very good at reading social cues. I understand things in literal ways.

But, how do I know when to ask her if she is okay?

It's scary to think about it even!

What red flag do I look for?

Thank you!

I am sorry that I asked! Autism Spectrum Disorder is kind of Communication Learning Disorder.

But before I do sex, I want to improve on my social skills a little more. I don't want to make mistakes and then be falsely accused of rape.