Explaining SoWal...

:clap_1:

SoWal.com educating the world!

:clap_1:

SoWal.com educating the world!

No better comment than this one. :clap_1:

Nice save. I always find myself trying to explain my imaginary friends.:clap_1: You missed your chance for your entire class to see that you are nuts.

Today before class started I was on SoWal, and my notebook screen froze and I was still trying to restart it when class began and just when it became unfrozen my professor walked up to me and wanted to see my outline with some questions I had for him on it. I then ended up having to explain what SoWal is, to him and also the rest of the class who listened in. I showed him the environmental forum and he commented that "the seawall issue is an interesting thing here," and asked me if I was "planning on taking on the issue in your later studies?"

He wasn't in the lounge was he? We really can't be explained here.

Well the dumb thing for me to do was to create an username with my real name. No anonymity now. So he will now probably surf these boards, create a username and spend time in the lounge and then think I am an idiot after reading my posts.

Well the dumb thing for me to do was to create an username with my real name. No anonymity now. So he will now probably surf these boards, create a username and spend time in the lounge and then think I am an idiot after reading my posts.

Just start posting using one of the ladyd names.

Just start posting using one of the ladyd names.

:clap_1:

Just start posting using one of the ladyd names.

Speaking of which, if we have so many ladies running around now, why aren't there any lordies? Are the ladies that ugly?

Just start posting using one of the ladyd names.

You are one smart kitty.

Bsmart, I am sure your Pro. will be a member SOON!!!!!!!

Nice save. I always find myself trying to explain my imaginary friends.:clap_1: You missed your chance for your entire class to see that you are nuts.

I was still trying to restart it when class began and just when it became unfrozen my professor walked up to me and wanted to see my outline with some questions I had for him on it. I showed him the environmental forum and he commented that "the seawall issue is an interesting thing here," and asked me if I was "planning on taking on the issue in your later studies?"

What subject does your professor teach?

What subject does your professor teach?

Torts. Nice to see you in the lounge.

Torts. Nice to see you in the lounge.

Business will be picking up.

he probably wouldn't be interested in the lounge area anyway. who knows though... he could be in for a real education... did you tell him that you are fairly certain that most of us are not ax murderers? except olive that is... she admitted it one day.

sounds like someone is the teacher's pet ......:funn:

sounds like someone is the teacher's pet ......:funn:

You know he did call me by my first name after we had an environmental law conversation, which lead into NEPA and my interest in NEPA compliance.

bsmart, I came across this question today. Perhaps you can have the class work on it.

First note, the two laws:
1) It is illegal to feed Dolphins
2) It is illegal to keep undersized fish.

Problem: You are out on the boat. You catch a undersized fish. Problem - the Dolphin have come in to try and steal your catch, and eat throw backs. What do you do? Do you keep the tired undersized fish in your live well until you can escape the Dolphin and then throw them back? (reminder- you cannot keep undersized fish on your boat) Or, do you throw them back in where the Dolphin without missing, will eat them? (reminder- it is illegal to feed the Dolphin)

I am serious about this. See if your class has an answer. If conservation is to take place by allowing the undersized fish to grow, it seems to make no sense to throw them back out when the Dolphin are waiting for easy lunch.

bsmart, I came across this question today. Perhaps you can have the class work on it.

First note, the two laws:
1) It is illegal to feed Dolphins
2) It is illegal to keep undersized fish.

Problem: You are out on the boat. You catch a undersized fish. Problem - the Dolphin have come in to try and steal your catch, and eat throw backs. What do you do? Do you keep the tired undersized fish in your live well until you can escape the Dolphin and then throw them back? (reminder- you cannot keep undersized fish on your boat) Or, do you throw them back in where the Dolphin without missing, will eat them? (reminder- it is illegal to feed the Dolphin)

I am serious about this. See if your class has an answer. If conservation is to take place by allowing the undersized fish to grow, it seems to make no sense to throw them back out when the Dolphin are waiting for easy lunch.

There are five essential elements of a crime:

1) mens rea--guilty mind;
2) act (effort);
3) the concurence of (fusion) of mens rea and act;
4) harm; and
5) causation


Basically all of these elements, especially mens rea, need to be identified in order for punishment to be inflicted on an accused.

Now for our case. It should be the intent of the person who has caught an undersized fish to throw it back into the ocean and to not keep it, for if he or she kept it in the boat until he or she has reached an area where there are no dolphins, then this person DOES have the intentions of keeping the undersized fish in the boat and mens rea is identified, and regardless of the purpose of the act, the person then becomes guilty of breaking that law which states that it is illegal to keep undersized fish. But, I assume for the purposes of your example, that it is not the intent of the person to feed the dolphins. Therefore, this person has NOT met the mens rea aspect of the illegal act of feeding dolphins, because it is his or her intent to throw back undersized fish so as to not break this law, regardless of what happens to that fish once it leaves the care of that person and once again enters the open waters of the ocean. So, mens rea in the the case of feeding the dolphins is not met, but it is met when you keep the undersized fish for the seemingly good purposes of taking them to an area where there are no dolphins.

:shock: this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to serious and deep for me...

There are five essential elements of a crime:

1) mens rea--guilty mind;
2) act (effort);
3) the concurence of (fusion) of mens rea and act;
4) harm; and
5) causation


Basically all of these elements, especially mens rea, need to be identified in order for punishment to be inflicted on an accused.

Now for our case. It should be the intent of the person who has caught an undersized fish to throw it back into the ocean and to not keep it, for if he or she kept it in the boat until he or she has reached an area where there are no dolphins, then this person DOES have the intentions of keeping the undersized fish in the boat and mens rea is identified, and regardless of the purpose of the act, the person then becomes guilty of breaking that law which states that it is illegal to keep undersized fish. But, I assume for the purposes of your example, that it is not the intent of the person to feed the dolphins. Therefore, this person has NOT met the mens rea aspect of the illegal act of feeding dolphins, because it is his or her intent to throw back undersized fish so as to not break this law, regardless of what happens to that fish once it leaves the care of that person and once again enters the open waters of the ocean. So, mens rea in the the case of feeding the dolphins is not met, but it is met when you keep the undersized fish for the seemingly good purposes of taking them to an area where there are no dolphins.

There are five essential elements of a crime:

1) mens rea--guilty mind;
2) act (effort);
3) the concurence of (fusion) of mens rea and act;
4) harm; and
5) causation


Basically all of these elements, especially mens rea, need to be identified in order for punishment to be inflicted on an accused.

Now for our case. It should be the intent of the person who has caught an undersized fish to throw it back into the ocean and to not keep it, for if he or she kept it in the boat until he or she has reached an area where there are no dolphins, then this person DOES have the intentions of keeping the undersized fish in the boat and mens rea is identified, and regardless of the purpose of the act, the person then becomes guilty of breaking that law which states that it is illegal to keep undersized fish. But, I assume for the purposes of your example, that it is not the intent of the person to feed the dolphins. Therefore, this person has NOT met the mens rea aspect of the illegal act of feeding dolphins, because it is his or her intent to throw back undersized fish so as to not break this law, regardless of what happens to that fish once it leaves the care of that person and once again enters the open waters of the ocean. So, mens rea in the the case of feeding the dolphins is not met, but it is met when you keep the undersized fish for the seemingly good purposes of taking them to an area where there are no dolphins.

Summary- damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If conservation is to take place by allowing the undersized fish to grow, it seems to make no sense to throw them back out when the Dolphin are waiting for easy lunch.

In terms of elements three and four, and a good defense if you were caught carrying undersized fish, would be to say that you were trying to preserve the intentions of the legislation which protects the fish in the first place. By carrying the fish on your boat to a safe area, you could say that you have not met the element of (intentional) harm and that your cause is to preserve the life of the undersized fish. Thus, in theory negating a guilty mind of knowingly carrying an undersized fish and all the while not feeding the dolphins.


I do not take criminal law until next semester, but we did touch on it in torts, contracts and in civil procedure, which is how I was able to come up with this answer.

In terms of elements three and four, and a good defense if you were caught carrying undersized fish, would be to say that you were trying to preserve the intentions of the legislation which protects the fish in the first place. By carrying the fish on your boat to a safe area, you could say that you have not met the element of (intentional) harm and that your cause is to preserve the life of the undersized fish. Thus, in theory negating a guilty mind of knowingly carrying an undersized fish and all the while not feeding the dolphins.


I do not take criminal law until next semester, but we did touch on it in torts, contracts and in civil procedure, which is how I was able to come up with this answer.

You may want to pass this on to Dead Fish Larry. ;-)

Very good analysis, bsmart, but as Jdarg summarized, the fish suffers, and everyone, but the Dolphin, gets screwed.

:clap_1:

SoWal.com educating the world!

No better comment than this one. :clap_1:

Nice save. I always find myself trying to explain my imaginary friends.:clap_1: You missed your chance for your entire class to see that you are nuts.

:funn:

Just start posting using one of the ladyd names.

Nice save. I always find myself trying to explain my imaginary friends.:clap_1: You missed your chance for your entire class to see that you are nuts.

One of these days I am going to forget to take my medicine.

One of these days I am going to forget to take my medicine.

Honey, SoWal IS your medicine!!!