Evasion and malice towards another person are two different concepts. Your dramatic pronouncements do not change that. I did not say that "mindlessness is not necessarily anti-life". You made up the quote. Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism begins with small-o objectivity and honesty with one's self. It's not about dramatically brandishing out of context slogans in sweeping pronouncements that make no sense in the context of the discussion. Take off your cape and stop misquoting and misrepresenting other people here (including Ayn Rand).

Yes.
There are degrees of carelessness, but under normal circumstances, if there is an accident, then the person should not be found guilty of a crime.

I would most certainly consider that a crime.
If a jurist, a hopefully objective peer, were to hear that they would think you are nuts.

I wouldn't say that crime is in the thought.
The destructive action is the first requirement. Then, the second requirement is the determination of whether the person meant to cause the harm.
If so, then the action was criminal.
If not, then it was an accident, miss-understanding, lack of awareness or some other non-criminally motivated action.

We all have "bad thoughts of destructive actions" but we are not criminals because we refrain ourselves from acting upon those thoughts.

Ewv, i ment no offense when I asked if you were a lawyer, juat curious as your response sounded "lawer-like." Here is a quote from the Washington Post regarding conviction of a Chicago cop for 2nd degree murder: "Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke has been convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated battery in the killing of Laquan McDonald. On October 20, 2014, Van Dyke shot and murdered teenager McDonald, shooting him 16 times, including a number of times while he lay dying in the street. Van Dyke said that he feared for his life..."

I wasn't referring to territory claimed by the mafia as their jurisdiction. Organized Crime has their own cods of conduct and means of dealing with those who break them which are at odds with our legal system, but eerily parallel with it at times.

I did not say that "mindlessness is not necessarily anti-life". Evasion is not necessarily deliberate malice towards another person. It is an entirely different statement than the 'quote' you made up. Your dramatic denunciations are misrepresentations lacking objectivity and honesty. This one is no better than your previous false claim that I equivocated between reason and force. Your thinking and writing are worse than sloppy -- whether or not "malicious".

If something is consensual it cannot retroactively become non-consensual. Either the person in fact consented or did not.

'Date rape' usually means on a consensual 'date' but with an assault going beyond that.

Any attempt to employ a change in 'feelings' to claim that consent no longer was consent is a misrepresentation of the facts of the event. An attempt to change that and make such a revision 'legal' is complete subjectivism in law and a travesty of justice no matter what realm it appears in.

Recklessness is not necessarily malicious. Evasive, out of focus disregard is not in itself a desire to harm. Malice is not relevant to determining recklessness or negligence.

OK, let’s leave the Kavanaugh/Ford issue aside (I agree with your general characterization). Coming back to earlier comment, if two (or more) people have sex, with no obvious complaints at that moment, can one of them claim assault or rape at a later time (based on regret or re-evaluation)? It is now called “date rape” and can end up with a person in prison. Yet, factually, the only change from yesterday’s enjoyment to today’s rape is the change of one person’s feelings.

This is a thread on the meaning of crime. There is no justification for switching the subject from a description of an assault as an example of a crime to an extraneous different event of something "consensual", which has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Ford's accusation of assault came up in this topic because it is what Galvin referred to, behind the fantasy of misrepresenting it as only a "kiss", which he was called out for. He tried to dismiss it as 'good intent' in an invention he has repeated several times as fact, and slipped it in here again as a false premise. His re-write is just as arbitrary as claiming it was "consensual".

The description of the assault is an example of a crime. Arbitrarily claiming that it was "consensual" does not change the fact that the description of the assault is an example of a crime.

Aside from the discussion of what is a crime, her account of what happened to her did not disintegrate. There is no evidence that Kavanaugh did it, and his character, reputation and calendar are all evidence that he did not, but It is plausible and likely that something like what she described as experiencing did happen to her. Her account of what happened to her personally is far more plausible than assertions by others who know nothing about it and were not there that is was only a "kiss" or "consensual". It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, but does represent a crime. You do not have to assume she is telling the truth to recognize that.

Sure, if you assume that she tells the truth. In this case, her story began to disintegrate from day one. There is nothing believable in her story, from discontinuity of events to facts being shown to be false, to body language clearly indicating lying. I am surprised how cheaply and unprofessionally her case was cobbled together. She is risking prison time.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that both the moral and legal concepts of murder do not include police protection, that territory claimed by a gang is not a "jurisdiction", that the violation of rights is not subjective, and sophism is not rational discussion..

You said that someone's choice creating a debt is a crime. That is not true. A crime must be identified as a violation of rights warranting punishment and compensation before any issue of repayment even comes up. Debt is not a crime and does not characterize crime.

Systematic scamming the exchange rate versus ignoring a difference in small amounts from a few coins not worth calculating does not mean that a person who spends a Canadian coin didn't do it deliberately -- he saw he had the coin and deliberately spent it.

An "accident" versus "malicious intent" is a false alternative. Accidents are not crimes unless caused by negligence.

Innocent until proven guilt does not presume any kind of intentions, only innocent before the law, which makes the rest legally irrelevant.

But wouldn't you and independent folks on a jury come to the conclusion that he had criminal intent AND acted on the intent to steal money?
Wouldn't you objectively find him guilty of a crime?

Whereas, if someone turned in some Canadian quarters along with some USA quarters with a routine deposit without giving it any thought, wouldn't you find them innocent, if you were on the jury?

The difference being one person deliberately did it and the other person did not. Agree Mr. Herb7734?

"feelings"
That gets to the heart of the matter.
We seemingly are moving away from an objective based legal system to one of feelings. If a self proclaimed victim "feels" hurt, insulted, harmed, etc, then they are supposed to be believed based on their proclamations. That we should assume innocent motives or just plain innocence is being pushed to the side.

I think, at the bottom of this, is a literal legalistic mentality that doesn't want to take into account peoples motives. For example, could it have been an accident? If yes, then benefit of the doubt we should presume innocence. Could it have been a misunderstanding? If yes, then we should presume innocence.

Now, it is GUILTY!! if someone "feels" attacked or embarrassed or insulted or harmed, etc. Guilty until proven innocent.

Doesn't this lower our society to one where many people, currently white males, need to live in fear of mere accusations? Is this not similar to an age when black people had to fear accusations? Or Jews in old time Germany? Or witches in Spain? And so on. Have we not learned our history lessons?

Innocence until proven guilty has inside of it that we should assume that people's intentions are good, or at least not malicious, unless proven otherwise.

It should not be a crime to be human and therefore with a limited mind that can not know everything, especially what might offend some other person that is around us.

when someone chooses to steal, commit murder, do arson, commit rape, commit crimes, for example, they create a debt to another entity. legal system determines the entities, the debt, the debtor, how it will be paid. Justice is when the debt is paid.

OK. Admittedly the mafia example is a specious argument and I plead guilty to sophism (in the modern sense.) But I couldn't find a suitable synonym, except maybe "purview', so its jurisdiction" in quotes. "Murder" is a legal term (as was pointed out to me during a jury panel voir dire by an attorney.) I asked, "so its an unsanctioned killing then?" "Unsanctioned by whom?" he asked. "by whoever has jurisdiction", I responded. i was immediately dismissed. Are an attorney by the way, ewv?

You said that someone's choice creating a debt is a crime.

She said she was assaulted by being pushed into a bedroom, thrown on the bed, and feared being killed. There wasn't anything consensual about it.